Data Sufficiency questions are unique to the GMAT. When first encountered they are cumbersome, confusing, and generally frustrating. The task is straightforward enough: based on two statements of information, determine whether a posed question can be answered. Data Sufficiency, or DS, questions can either ask for a numerical value or a yes/no response. The determination will be one of five possible: (1) The first statement provides enough information to answer, but the second statement does not; (2) The second statement provides enough information to answer, but the first statement does not; (3) Only when the two statements are considered together does one have sufficient information to answer the question; (4) Either statement provides enough information to answer the question when considered individually; and (5) Neither statement, considered alone nor together, provides sufficient information to answer the question and additional information is necessary.
The GMAT is a frustrating test to learn and most who find themselves in battle with it end up following a red herring by questioning what any of it has to do with business. This line of questioning takes the focus off the necessary work and constructs cognitive walls that impede progress. For this reason, I always like to offer a brief comment to my students regarding the relevance of DS questions to managerial skill. The reaction is never revelatory, but I like to sow a lot of different seeds in the minds of my students. I say something like this:
“As managers, you will set your direct reports to tasks and the fruit of their labor will result in information for you. With that information you will be expected to make a decision. But, a preliminary decision must first be made. Do you have enough information to make your decision, or should you send your direct reports back to gather more?”
GMAT students are successful, highly educated, and ambitious. They do not generally respond well to being “stumped.” Often, the perception is that intelligence is all that is needed to answer the questions posed by this test. The reasoning goes that since they are intelligent people, answering a DS question is a matter leveling at it a tested combination of smarts and willpower.
Very soon, everyone must come to terms with the necessity of building skills they do not yet possess. If this was a physical skills test—say, ping pong—then it would be naturally accepted that in order to win a difficult match against a very strong opponent, hard training over a long period of time is absolutely requisite. However, because the GMAT is a cognitive skills test, people naturally assume that since they are smart they will be able to beat the test handily. Sure, one might have to recall how to factor a quadratic equation or that 2 is the smallest and only even prime number, but that won’t take long. Relearning the mechanics is sufficient to come out on top.
Unsurprisingly, the above is simply not the case. While mechanical mathematic skills are necessary, they are by no means sufficient. The ability to put different spins on a ping pong ball will not win the match. Understanding how scoring works and who serves when will not win the match. Sure-footedness and the shoes to enhance it will not win the match. A good night’s sleep and consistent hydration will not win the match. Instead, the challenger must be able to bring those and so many more variables together to work in harmony and respond in real time to the honed and formidable skillfulness of the opponent.
The GMAT is beatable. However, dedicated, arduous, expert training is the only way to win. The GMAT is a skills test and skills tests are very difficult. They command more than content knowledge. They command methodological, tactical, and strategic proficiency.
Data Sufficiency questions are a hard serve, a bent trajectory, a bounce off the corner of the table. The interpretation and resulting action of the test taker must be swift, deft, efficient, and, above all, accurate. So, since the big match is coming the only thing to do is train.
