Data Insights Is Where Data Sufficiency Lives Now. Don't Treat It Like Quant.

By EMPOWERgmat on January 9, 2024

Say you just crushed a Quant practice set. Clean work, fast, confident. Then you open a Data Insights set and it falls apart. You spend four minutes on a Data Sufficiency question. You land on a number. You feel great. And you STILL pick the wrong answer. I watch people do this every single week right now, and the cause is NOT your math.

Here's the blunt verdict: you trained for the wrong event.

Data Sufficiency moved out. Did your study plan move with it?

The GMAT Focus Edition started in November 2023. On this version, the Quant section has 21 questions, and every one of them is Problem Solving (the normal kind of math question where you pick one of five answers). Data Sufficiency is gone from Quant. It now lives in Data Insights, a 20-question section that also holds Multi-Source Reasoning, Table Analysis, Graphics Interpretation and Two-Part Analysis. Each of the three sections gets 45 minutes, and you pick the order. GMAC lays out the whole thing on its exam format page.

If you're still sitting for the old GMAT, which is offered until early 2024, Data Sufficiency is still inside its Quant section. This post is for Focus Edition Test Takers.

Data Sufficiency, or DS, gives you a question and two statements. You don't answer the question. You decide whether the facts are ENOUGH to answer it. That one shift is the whole ballgame.

Why more Quant won't save you

Quant asks: what is the answer? DS asks: COULD you get the answer? Those are different jobs. A Quant habit says keep going until you have a number. On DS, that habit burns time, because the number is never what you're scored on.

And DS is only one of five question types in the section. The rest are about reading data: a table you can sort, a graph with blanks to fill, a few tabs of info you have to connect, a question with two linked answers. Lots of strong math people struggle here, because the hard part is reading what's actually on the screen, not doing algebra. Grinding 500 more Problem Solving questions trains none of that.

A runner jogging laps on a track while a swimmer glides past in a pool lane right beside it. — Fit for one event is not ready for another.

It's like training for a swim meet by running laps. You'll get fitter. You won't get faster in the water.

Stop reading and answer this. In your last Data Insights practice set, how many questions did you miss because you didn't know the math? Now, how many did you miss because you misread, solved too far or rushed? I'll bet the second list is LONGER.

Try it

A store sold 120 shirts last week. Each shirt sold for either $15 or $25. How many $25 shirts did the store sell?

(1) The store's revenue from the 120 shirts was $2,200.

(2) The store sold 40 more $15 shirts than $25 shirts.

Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are not sufficient.

Show the answer

Notes first. Write a = number of $15 shirts, b = number of $25 shirts. The question already hands you a + b = 120. Write AD over BCE so you can cross off choices as you go.

Statement (1): 15a + 25b = 2,200. Put that next to a + b = 120 and you have two different equations with two unknowns. That's enough to find b. STOP. Don't solve it. Sufficient. The answer is A or D.

Statement (2): a − b = 40. Next to a + b = 120, that's again two different equations, two unknowns. Sufficient. The answer is D.

Want proof? a = 80 and b = 40 fit both. 80 times $15 is $1,200, 40 times $25 is $1,000, and the total is $2,200. Also 80 minus 40 is 40.

The traps. The Quant brain solves both systems all the way out. That's a minute or more of work that earns ZERO extra credit. The second trap is thinking "two unknowns, so I need both statements" and picking C. The question stem is a source of facts too. Use it.

The mistakes, and what to do INSTEAD

Solving to the finish line. You treat every DS question like homework that needs a final answer.
INSTEAD: Ask one thing: could I solve this? The moment the answer is yes or no, write S or NS next to that statement and move on.
Combining the statements too early. You read statement (1), feel unsure, and glue statement (2) onto it before you've tested either one alone.
INSTEAD: Judge each statement by itself, as if the other one doesn't exist. Only then think about combining. We broke this down in stop combining the statements too early.
Doing it in your head. Data Insights screens are packed with numbers. Holding them in memory is how silly mistakes happen, and it's pride, not skill.
INSTEAD: Label every variable, write the AD/BCE grid, jot units next to numbers. Every time.
Training only DS. It's the type you know, so it's the type you drill. The other four sit there untouched.
INSTEAD: Give every question type real reps. Then review each miss and name WHY it happened: misread, missed a detail in a table, solved too far, ran low on time. You are NOT allowed to say "no idea."
Treating answer changes as a safety net. You can review and change up to 3 answers per section. That's a tool, not a plan.
INSTEAD: Answer each question as if you'll never see it again. Save those changes for real toss-ups.
Never practicing Data Insights inside a full test. A 20-question set when you're fresh is not the same as Data Insights after 45 minutes of Verbal.
INSTEAD: On full practice tests, one a week at most, try putting Data Insights in different spots and see where you do best. GMAC's official practice materials are built for this.

A word on time. 20 questions in 45 minutes averages out to 2 minutes 15 seconds each. That's an AVERAGE, not a rule. Some DS questions take 40 seconds. A three-tab Multi-Source question can take a lot longer. Pacing trouble here is a symptom. Fix the habits above and the clock fixes itself.

Try it

Is n > 1?

(1) n² > n

(2) n³ > n²

Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are not sufficient.

Show the answer

TEST VALUES. Pick numbers that fit the statement, then see if the answer to the question ever changes.

Statement (1): Try n = 2. Is 4 > 2? Yes, so 2 fits. Is 2 > 1? YES. Now try n = −1. Is 1 > −1? Yes, so −1 fits too. Is −1 > 1? NO. Two values fit, two different answers. Insufficient. Cross off A and D.

Statement (2): Try n = 2. Is 8 > 4? Yes, and 2 > 1, so YES. Try n = −1: is −1 > 1? No, so −1 doesn't fit. Try n = 0: is 0 > 0? No. Try n = 1/2: is 1/8 > 1/4? No. Every number that fits is bigger than 1. Here's why: n² can't be negative, and it can't be 0 here, so n³ > n² only works when n is bigger than 1. Always YES. Sufficient. The answer is B.

The trap. In statement (1), people divide both sides by n, get n > 1, and pick D. You can't divide an inequality by a number unless you know its sign. Testing one negative number catches it in ten seconds.

Your move

Today, pull 10 Data Sufficiency questions you've already done. Redo them on paper with the grid. For each statement, mark the exact line where you KNEW it was sufficient or not, then circle every bit of work you did after that line. Count the circles. Then tell me more Quant is what you need.