Confusion with question wordings!

[chetan.kinger45]

I am facing a problem while understanding the wordings on some problems. So far, I have covered the FDP book and 90 percent of the Algebra book.

1.A question on the Algebra book has a statement as follows

The retailer has less than twice as many radios as clocks in inventory

I translated this equation to r<c/2 but the solution given in the book translated this statement to r<2c. I realize that my translation is wrong since it does not help in arriving at a conclusion. I am a non native English speaker but I do have a strong control over the English language. Is the translation given in the solution natural for native speakers?

2. I also had a problem understanding the following question from the OG 13 for FDP. (Page 184, problem 226)

A straight pipe 1 yard in length was marked off in fourths and also in thirds

There are so many different interpretations of the above statement.
A. The pipe was only marked off twice, once in fourths and then in thirds starting from the beginning of the pipe.
B. The pipe was marked off in thirds and fourths in alternates
C. The pipe was only marked off twice, once in fourths and once in thirds starting from the end of the pipe.

I am forced to skip such questions because I don't understand them.

[RonPurewal]

The first of these seems to be a legitimate "language barrier" issue. The second, no.

The retailer has less than twice as many radios as clocks in inventory

This should say fewer, not less.

Consider the following statement:
There are twice as many women as men in the room.

If this statement is true, then there are more women than men in the room. To be precise, there are 2 women in the room for every 1 man.

* If you understood this immediately, then the issue isn't a language barrier, because this construction is the same as the one in the problem. In this case, you're just failing to transfer your knowledge of the construction from one context to the next.

* If you didn't understand this, then it's a language issue, and you need to remember how it works for next time. It may be annoying, but it's not very complicated; just remember an example or two, and next time you'll be fine.

Is the translation given in the solution natural for native speakers?

Yes.
Sometimes native speakers will write the equation backward, as you did. In those cases, though, the problem generally isn't the statement; the problem is that they aren't thinking about the meaning of the algebraic symbols.

[RonPurewal]

A straight pipe 1 yard in length was marked off in fourths and also in thirds

When I see this statement, I see only a single interpretation, regardless of the language.

Consider the following statement:
A measuring tape is marked off in inches and also in centimeters.
I think you'll agree with me that this statement has only a single interpretation.

There are so many different interpretations of the above statement.
A. The pipe was only marked off twice, once in fourths and then in thirds starting from the beginning of the pipe.
B. The pipe was marked off in thirds and fourths in alternates
C. The pipe was only marked off twice, once in fourths and once in thirds starting from the end of the pipe.

There's no difference between A and C. If the fourths are marked from left to right, the markings are 1/4, 1/2, 3/4. If the fourths are marked from right to left, the markings are in exactly the same places, but are 3/4, 1/2, 1/4.
These problems are concerned only with the locations of the markings, not with their labels.

In case B, I don't really see what you mean. How would this be done?
I'm not seeing any way to do what B says.
Even if there is such a way, it will inevitably be some strange/exotic marking system that would basically never be used in the real world. Keep this in mind: If an interpretation of a word problem seems "weird" or "exotic", then it's the wrong interpretation.
Interpretations of word problems should be very ordinary and very boring.

[chetan.kinger45]

Ron,

Thanks for clarifying my doubts.

Regarding questions of type two, my interpretation was incorrect. I assumed that marking off in fourths means making a marking at 1/4 and that's about it. Marking off in thirds means making a marking at 1/3 and that's about it. With this understanding, I got even more confused about whether to mark of the pipe at 1/4 only and 1/3 only once or whether to mark off the pipe at 1/4, then at 1/3, then at 1/4 and so on. But it's clear that marking off something in fourths means marking it in four equal parts and not marking it at 1/4 alone.

I also did not understand how did you come up with 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4. I asked around and realized that we were simply adding 1/4 after each marking till we did not have any more fourths left.

I hope this clarifies the source of my confusion.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Thanks for clarifying my doubts.

Regarding questions of type two, my interpretation was incorrect. I assumed that marking off in fourths means making a marking at 1/4 and that's about it. Marking off in thirds means making a marking at 1/3 and that's about it. With this understanding, I got even more confused about whether to mark of the pipe at 1/4 only and 1/3 only once or whether to mark off the pipe at 1/4, then at 1/3, then at 1/4 and so on. But it's clear that marking off something in fourths means marking it in four equal parts and not marking it at 1/4 alone.

"Fourths" and "thirds" are plural.
That's all you need to eliminate this possibility.

I also did not understand how did you come up with 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4. I asked around and realized that we were simply adding 1/4 after each marking till we did not have any more fourths left.

It's 1/4, 2/4, and 3/4, but with 2/4 simplified.

You've probably seen something marked off in fourths, at some point in your life. E.g., if you have a 1-liter pitcher of beer, then there might be marks at 250ml, 500ml, and 750ml (i.e., 1/4 liter, 1/2 liter, and 3/4 liter).
You may not see this as often as Americans do"”we see things like 1/4 inch, 3/4 mile, etc. all the time, while people using metric units don't"”but it's still a thing.

[chetan.kinger45]

We don't really use the fourths and thirds terminology out here as far as I can remember correctly. I remember my high school math questions always said things like a cake is cut in 6 equal parts instead of saying a cake was cut in sixths. I also remember hearing a lot of one fourth and one thirds but I don't remember hearing fourths and thirds. Like you said, I need to get used to these wordings.. :)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. The MGMAT and OG books, gmat forums and your posts are the only things I am putting my faith in for beating this beast of an examt! :)

[jlucero]

Glad you've found us to be helpful so far. Don't hesitate to reach out with more questions!