EA Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: (1) At the six stores without self-checkout, average waits were essentially unchanged from February to April., (2) In March, Greystone also added a second shift of cashiers at the six stores that installed self-checkout.

A causal conclusion from a before-and-after change is strengthened by a comparison group that did not change and weakened by a second change at the same place and time.

Answer: (1) 10, (2) 15

1. Rates: A = 1/a, B = 1/(a + 5); together 1/6 floor per hour.
2. 6(a + 5) + 6a = a(a + 5), so a² − 7a − 30 = 0, which factors as (a − 10)(a + 3) = 0.
3. a = 10 (a must be positive), so B takes 15. Check: 1/10 + 1/15 = 1/6.
4. Faster route: test the options; only the pair 10 and 15 differs by 5 and has rates summing to 1/6.

Add rates, not times; when both answers come from a shared option list, testing pairs that satisfy the stated difference is often fastest.

Answer: (1) 660, (2) 24%

In a flow diagram, each percentage applies to the box the arrow leaves; multiply along a path, and use the requested group ("not approved") as the denominator.

Answer: Every department that spent more than its 2025 budget received a 2026 budget no larger than its 2025 actual spending.: Yes; Total 2025 actual spending for the nine departments exceeded the total 2025 budget by less than 1%.: Yes; Fire has the largest 2026 budget per employee of the nine departments.: No

For "every X" statements, find all members of X and test each one, paying attention to boundary words such as "no larger than"; compute an aggregate percent from totals, not from row percents.

Answer: D

Traffic volume at the twelve intersections has risen slightly since the roundabouts replaced the signals.: Helps a little, since collisions fell despite more traffic, but it rules out only one alternative; citywide changes in weather, enforcement, or vehicles remain possible causes.

Injury collisions at roundabouts in other cities tend to be less severe than those at signalized intersections.: Makes the claim plausible in general, but it concerns severity in other cities and rules out none of the other factors that might explain the drop at Nordhaven's twelve intersections.

During the same two years, Nordhaven added traffic-police patrols along several of its busiest roads.: Weakens: added enforcement is an alternative cause that could explain fewer collisions without the roundabouts.

At similar Nordhaven intersections that kept their signals, injury collisions were unchanged over the two years.: Correct. The engineers claim the roundabouts, 'rather than other factors', caused the decline. A comparison group of similar signalized intersections with no decline rules out citywide factors all at once, which is the strongest support.

The city chose these twelve intersections because they had the highest injury-collision rates in all of Nordhaven.: Weakens: intersections chosen for unusually high collision counts tend to show declines afterward even without a change.

The best strengthener for a "rather than other factors" claim is a comparison group that experienced the other factors but not the proposed cause.

Answer: E

Some employees who work on the sales floor hold a forklift license.: Not guaranteed: the course graduates who hold forklift licenses need not be among those who work on the sales floor.

No employee who works in the accounting office has completed the product-safety course.: Not guaranteed: the statements forbid forklift-license holders in accounting, not course graduates in general.

Every employee who has completed the product-safety course works on the sales floor.: Reverses the first statement: all sales-floor staff took the course, but course graduates may work elsewhere.

Every employee who holds a forklift license at the store has completed the product-safety course.: Not guaranteed: 'some' course graduates hold licenses, but other license holders may never have taken the course.

Some employees who have completed the product-safety course do not work in the accounting office.: Correct. Statement 2 says some course graduates hold forklift licenses; statement 3 says no license holder works in accounting. So those particular graduates are not in accounting, and the option must be true.

For must-be-true questions, chain the statements ('some A are B' + 'no B are C' gives 'some A are not C') and reject reversals of 'all' statements.

Answer: C

Discovered in an attic in 2019, the museum now displays the letters that Theodora Whitcombe wrote to her publisher: Dangling modifier: 'Discovered in an attic in 2019' describes the letters, but the noun that follows it is 'the museum'.

Discovered in an attic in 2019, the museum now displays Theodora Whitcombe's letters to her publisher: Shortens the sentence but still puts 'the museum' right after the modifier, so the museum seems to have been discovered.

Discovered in an attic in 2019, the letters that Theodora Whitcombe wrote to her publisher are now displayed by the museum: Correct. Modifiers: the opening phrase is followed by 'the letters', the thing that was discovered. The passive voice is justified here because it puts the right noun next to the modifier.

The museum, discovered in an attic in 2019, now displays the letters that Theodora Whitcombe wrote to her publisher: Misplaced modifier: 'discovered in an attic in 2019' now describes the museum directly.

Having been discovered in an attic in 2019, the museum is now displaying the letters Theodora Whitcombe wrote to her publisher: Still dangling (the museum was not discovered), and 'Having been' and 'is now displaying' are wordy.

Do not reject the passive voice automatically: when only a passive main clause puts the right noun next to an opening modifier, it is the best choice.

Answer: B

were enough to offset the revenue decline, which the division have reported: Two agreement errors: with 'neither ... nor', the verb agrees with the nearer subject, the singular 'hiring freeze', so 'were' is wrong; and 'the division' is singular, so 'have' is wrong.

was enough to offset the revenue decline that the division has reported: Correct. Agreement: 'neither ... nor' takes the number of the nearer subject ('the hiring freeze', so 'was'), and the singular 'division' takes 'has'. The meaning is unchanged.

was enough to offset the revenue decline that the division have reported: Fixes the first verb but keeps the plural 'have' with the singular 'division'.

were enough to offset the revenue decline that the division has reported: Fixes 'has' but keeps 'were', which wrongly agrees with the farther subject 'cuts'.

was enough for offsetting the revenue decline that the division has reported: Fixes both agreement errors but introduces the unidiomatic 'enough for offsetting'; the form is 'enough to' + verb.

With 'either/neither ... or/nor', the verb agrees with the nearer subject; in American English a collective noun such as 'division' takes a singular verb.

Answer: E

fails to say how many customers made a deposit at a teller window last month: A lesser concern: even a very large sample of teller-window customers would be unrepresentative; the problem is who was asked, not how many.

presumes that customers who rarely use the app would rather bank in person: Not presumed: the conclusion concerns only how many customers use mobile deposit, not what any customer prefers.

takes for granted that the surveyed customers described their habits accurately: A minor worry at most: nothing suggests that customers misreport a simple habit, and the argument has a far larger gap in whom it surveyed.

overlooks the possibility that some customers do not know the app exists: Would help explain why use is low; it does not undercut the conclusion that most customers do not use the feature.

draws its conclusion from customers who had just chosen not to deposit by phone: Correct. Conclusion: most customers do not use mobile deposit. Evidence: a survey of people depositing at a teller window, who are the customers least likely to use the app; customers who deposit by phone may rarely visit a teller, so the sample is biased toward non-users.

A survey supports a conclusion about a whole group only if the people surveyed are representative; ask whether the way they were chosen is linked to the answer being measured.

Answer: C

1. Statement (1): the change in the number of loaves is unknown: with the same number sold, revenue rises 20%, but if sales halved, revenue changes by $1.2\times 0.5=0.6$, a 40% fall. NOT sufficient; eliminate A and D.
2. Statement (2): sales fell from 12,000 to 10,000 loaves, a factor of $\frac{5}{6}$, but the price change is unknown. NOT sufficient; eliminate B.
3. Together: revenue = price × quantity, so revenue changed by a factor of $1.2\times \frac{5}{6}=1$: it did not change at all (0%). SUFFICIENT; the answer is C.

Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.: Statement (1) alone is not sufficient: the change in the number of loaves is unknown: with the same number sold, revenue rises 20%, but if sales halved, revenue changes by $1.2\times 0.5=0.6$, a 40% fall.

Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.: Statement (2) alone is not sufficient: sales fell from 12,000 to 10,000 loaves, a factor of $\frac{5}{6}$, but the price change is unknown.

BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.: Correct. Neither statement alone is sufficient. Statement (1) alone is not sufficient: the change in the number of loaves is unknown: with the same number sold, revenue rises 20%, but if sales halved, revenue changes by $1.2\times 0.5=0.6$, a 40% fall. Statement (2) alone is not sufficient: sales fell from 12,000 to 10,000 loaves, a factor of $\frac{5}{6}$, but the price change is unknown. Together the statements are sufficient: revenue = price × quantity, so revenue changed by a factor of $1.2\times \frac{5}{6}=1$: it did not change at all (0%).

EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.: Statement (1) alone is not sufficient: the change in the number of loaves is unknown: with the same number sold, revenue rises 20%, but if sales halved, revenue changes by $1.2\times 0.5=0.6$, a 40% fall.

Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.: Together the statements are sufficient: revenue = price × quantity, so revenue changed by a factor of $1.2\times \frac{5}{6}=1$: it did not change at all (0%).

Percent changes multiply; convert a change given in units (2,000 fewer loaves out of 12,000) into a factor before combining it with a percent change.

Answer: D

1. Statement (1): $(x-3{)}^2<16$ means $|x-3|<4$, which guarantees $|x-3|<5$: a definite yes. SUFFICIENT, so the answer is A or D.
2. Statement (2): $x^2-2x-8<0$ factors as $(x-4)(x+2)<0$, so $-2<x<4$; that range lies inside $-2<x<8$, the solution of $|x-3|<5$, so the answer is yes. SUFFICIENT; the answer is D.

Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.: Statement (2) alone is also sufficient: $x^2-2x-8<0$ factors as $(x-4)(x+2)<0$, so $-2<x<4$; that range lies inside $-2<x<8$, the solution of $|x-3|<5$, so the answer is yes.

Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.: Statement (1) alone is also sufficient: $(x-3{)}^2<16$ means $|x-3|<4$, which guarantees $|x-3|<5$: a definite yes.

BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.: A single statement is already sufficient, so C is wrong. Statement (1) alone is sufficient: $(x-3{)}^2<16$ means $|x-3|<4$, which guarantees $|x-3|<5$: a definite yes.

EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.: Correct. Statement (1) alone is sufficient: $(x-3{)}^2<16$ means $|x-3|<4$, which guarantees $|x-3|<5$: a definite yes. Statement (2) alone is sufficient: $x^2-2x-8<0$ factors as $(x-4)(x+2)<0$, so $-2<x<4$; that range lies inside $-2<x<8$, the solution of $|x-3|<5$, so the answer is yes.

Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.: Statement (1) alone is sufficient: $(x-3{)}^2<16$ means $|x-3|<4$, which guarantees $|x-3|<5$: a definite yes.

Rewrite $|x-a|<b$ as the interval $a-b<x<a+b$, solve each statement as an interval too, and check whether the statement's whole range fits inside.

Answer: B

1. Setup: the analyst term must match: 2 : 9 and 3 : 4 = 9 : 12, so M : A : I = 2 : 9 : 12.
2. Computation: I − A = 12 − 9 = 3 parts = 15, so 1 part = 5 and M = 2 × 5 = 10.
3. Check: 10 : 45 = 2 : 9 and 45 : 60 = 3 : 4; 60 − 45 = 15.

5: Gives the value of one part, not the number of managers (2 parts).

10: Correct. Rewrite 3 : 4 as 9 : 12 so the analysts match: managers : analysts : interns = 2 : 9 : 12. Interns − analysts = 3 parts = 15, so 1 part = 5 and managers = 10.

30: Stacks the ratios as 2 : 3 : 4 without matching the analyst terms, so interns − analysts looks like 1 part = 15.

45: Gives the number of analysts (9 parts).

60: Gives the number of interns (12 parts).

To chain ratios, scale them so the shared term is the same number in both before combining.

Answer: E

1. Setup: "different colors" happens as red-then-blue or blue-then-red.
2. Computation: $\frac{4}{10}\cdot \frac{6}{9}+\frac{6}{10}\cdot \frac{4}{9}=\frac{48}{90}=\frac{8}{15}$.
3. Check by counting: $4\times 6=24$ mixed pairs out of $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{10}{2}\right)=45$ pairs, and $\frac{24}{45}=\frac{8}{15}$.

$\frac{4}{15}$: Counts only one order (red then blue: $\frac{4}{10}\times \frac{6}{9}$) and misses blue then red.

$\frac{7}{15}$: Gives the probability that the two pens are the same color, the complement of what is asked.

$\frac{12}{25}$: Treats the draws as with replacement: $2\times 0.4\times 0.6=0.48$.

$\frac{1}{2}$: Assumes "same" and "different" are equally likely outcomes.

$\frac{8}{15}$: Correct. Red then blue, $\frac{4}{10}\times \frac{6}{9}=\frac{24}{90}$, plus blue then red, $\frac{6}{10}\times \frac{4}{9}=\frac{24}{90}$, gives $\frac{48}{90}=\frac{8}{15}$.

Without replacement, the second probability uses the reduced total; for "one of each", add both orders or count unordered pairs.

Answer: D

1. Setup: after salaries, $1-\frac{1}{3}=\frac{2}{3}$ of the budget remains; marketing is $\frac{1}{4}$ of that.
2. Computation: marketing $=\frac{1}{4}\times \frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{6}$ of the budget, so budget $=6\times 18,000=108,000$ dollars.
3. Check: salaries $36,000, remainder $72,000, and one-fourth of $72,000 is $18,000.

$27,000: Divides $18,000 by $\frac{2}{3}$, the share left after salaries, but forgets that marketing is only $\frac{1}{4}$ of that share.

$72,000: Takes marketing as $\frac{1}{4}$ of the whole budget ($4\times 18,000$); $72,000 is really the remainder after salaries.

$96,000: Finds the remainder ($72,000) but then reads salaries as $\frac{1}{3}$ of the remainder, adding $24,000 instead of dividing $72,000 by $\frac{2}{3}$.

$108,000: Correct. Marketing is $\frac{1}{4}\times \frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{6}$ of the budget, so the budget is $6\times 18,000=108,000$ dollars.

$216,000: Divides the $72,000 remainder by $\frac{1}{3}$ instead of $\frac{2}{3}$, as if marketing were $\frac{1}{4}$ of the salaries ($\frac{1}{12}$ of the budget).

"A fraction of the remainder" multiplies two fractions; convert everything to a fraction of the whole before solving.