GMAT Two-Part Analysis: how the questions work, with worked examples
Two-Part Analysis is the Data Insights format that looks most like an ordinary test question, and that is part of the trap. You get a short scenario and a list of options, and you must make two selections, one in each of two columns. The two answers are almost always connected, so the fastest route is rarely to solve for each one separately.
This guide explains the format, gives a four-step method, and works through three original examples: two quantitative and one verbal, including the case where the same option answers both columns.
What Two-Part Analysis looks like
Two-Part Analysis is one of the five question types in the GMAT Focus Data Insights section, which has 20 questions in 45 minutes and an on-screen calculator. GMAC describes these questions as asking you to work out the answers to two problems that are connected in some way, presented in a table where you choose your answers from two columns. GMAC also notes that they can be quantitative, verbal, or a combination of both.
On screen, it looks like this:
| Column 1 | Column 2 | Option |
|---|---|---|
| ○ | ○ | Option A |
| ○ | ○ | Option B |
| ○ | ○ | Option C |
| ○ | ○ | Option D |
| ○ | ○ | Option E |
You select one option in each column. Both columns draw on the same list of options, and unless the question says otherwise, the same option can be the answer to both columns. Prep companies consistently report that there is no partial credit: both selections must be right for the question to count as correct.
Common versions:
- Two unknowns and one or two equations: a price and a quantity, a rate and a time.
- Two roles in an argument: an assumption and a conclusion, or a strengthener and a weakener.
- Logic or scheduling: two items that satisfy a set of rules together.
A four-step method
- Read the column headings first. They tell you exactly what to find, and they often reveal the relationship between the two answers ("Price per unit" and "Number of units", or "Strengthens" and "Weakens").
- Write the constraint that links the columns. For quantitative versions, it is usually an equation. For verbal versions, it is the logical relationship: one supports and one undermines, one is a premise and one is the conclusion.
- Use the options. The option list is short, usually five or six values. Testing them against the constraint is often faster than solving in general, especially when a calculator is available.
- Check both answers against every condition. Many questions add one extra requirement (whole numbers, "at least one", "different values") that makes the answer unique. Reread the prompt before you confirm.
Average time in Data Insights is about 2 minutes 15 seconds per question. Two-Part Analysis questions with a clear equation can take less; verbal ones with long options can take more.
Worked example 1: quantitative
Jana invested a total of $10,000 in two accounts for one year. One account paid 4% simple annual interest and the other paid 7% simple annual interest. At the end of the year, she had earned $580 in interest in total.
Select for Invested at 4% the amount Jana invested in the 4% account, and for Invested at 7% the amount she invested in the 7% account. Make only two selections, one in each column.
| Invested at 4% | Invested at 7% | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| ○ | ○ | $3,000 |
| ○ | ○ | $4,000 |
| ○ | ○ | $5,000 |
| ○ | ○ | $6,000 |
| ○ | ○ | $7,000 |
Solution. Let x be the amount at 4%. Then 0.04x + 0.07(10,000 − x) = 580, which gives 700 − 0.03x = 580, so x = 4,000. Invested at 4%: $4,000. Invested at 7%: $6,000.
A faster check: if all $10,000 earned 7%, interest would be $700. Every dollar moved to the 4% account costs 3 cents, and the actual interest is $120 lower, so $120 ÷ 0.03 = $4,000 sits at 4%.
The trap. $6,000 and $4,000 are both in the list, so swapping the columns gives a "correct-looking" pair that is wrong. Before you confirm, check that the higher rate goes with the amount that produces the right total: 0.04 × 4,000 + 0.07 × 6,000 = 160 + 420 = 580. Correct.
Worked example 2: verbal
City planner: Since protected bike lanes were built downtown, the number of cyclist injuries reported downtown has fallen by 30 percent. The lanes have therefore made cycling downtown safer.
Select for Strengthens the statement that would most strengthen the planner's argument, and for Weakens the statement that would most weaken it. Make only two selections, one in each column.
| Strengthens | Weakens | Statement |
|---|---|---|
| ○ | ○ | A. After the lanes opened, the number of people cycling downtown fell by half. |
| ○ | ○ | B. Over the same period, cyclist injuries in parts of the city without new lanes did not change. |
| ○ | ○ | C. The lanes were built for less than their planned budget. |
| ○ | ○ | D. Most downtown cyclists wear helmets. |
| ○ | ○ | E. Pedestrian injuries downtown rose slightly after the lanes opened. |
Solution. The conclusion is about safety, which means risk per cyclist, but the evidence is a total count of injuries. The gap is whether the number of cyclists stayed about the same, and whether something else citywide explains the fall.
- Strengthens: B. If injuries elsewhere stayed flat, a citywide cause (weather, reporting changes) is less likely, so the lanes look more responsible for the drop.
- Weakens: A. If half as many people cycled, a 30 percent fall in injuries means the injury rate per cyclist actually rose: 0.7 ÷ 0.5 = 1.4, a 40 percent increase in risk.
C is about cost. D describes cyclists at one point in time and says nothing about what changed when the lanes opened. E concerns pedestrians, not cyclists, so it does not touch the conclusion about cycling safety. This is the same skill as Critical Reasoning weaken and strengthen questions, in a two-column format.
Worked example 3: the same option in both columns
Select a value for x and a value for y that together satisfy both equations below. Make only two selections, one in each column.
x² = 4y
x + y = 8
| x | y | Value |
|---|---|---|
| ○ | ○ | −4 |
| ○ | ○ | 2 |
| ○ | ○ | 4 |
| ○ | ○ | 6 |
| ○ | ○ | 8 |
Solution. Substitute y = 8 − x into the first equation: x² = 32 − 4x, so x² + 4x − 32 = 0, which factors as (x + 8)(x − 4) = 0. The root x = −8 would need y = 16, and neither value is in the list, so x = 4 and y = 4.
Many test-takers find x = 4 quickly and then hesitate, because selecting 4 again for y "feels" wrong. It is not. Both columns draw on the same list, and nothing in the prompt says the values must differ.
Why test the options anyway. Without the algebra, you could look for pairs of options that add to 8: (2, 6), (6, 2) and (4, 4). Only (4, 4) satisfies x² = 4y. With a short option list, checking the pairs is often as fast as solving, and it is a useful confirmation when you are unsure of your algebra.
A variation to watch for. If the option list had included −8 and 16, the question would have two valid pairs, and a well-built question would add a condition such as "x is positive" to make the answer unique. When you see such a condition, it is there for a reason: use it.
Common Two-Part Analysis traps
| Trap | What happens | Defence |
|---|---|---|
| Swapped columns | Both correct values selected, in the wrong columns | Plug both back into the original condition |
| Solving each column alone | A value that works for one column but not with the other | Write the linking constraint before looking at options |
| Missing the uniqueness condition | Two pairs seem to work | Look for "integer", "at least one", "different" in the prompt |
| Assuming the answers must differ | A correct answer rejected because it was already used | The same option can fill both columns unless told otherwise |
| Verbal scope shift | A choice about a related topic, not the conclusion | Test each option against the exact conclusion |
How to practise Two-Part Analysis
- Start untimed. Learn to write the linking constraint quickly. Speed follows once the setup is automatic.
- Mix quantitative and verbal versions. Many people are strong at one and weak at the other. An error log sorted by version will show which.
- Strengthen the underlying skills. Quantitative versions use the same algebra and word-problem skills as Problem Solving; verbal versions use Critical Reasoning skills.
- Drill the format. Our Two-Part Analysis practice questions show the full option table with explanations for both columns.
For the other Data Insights formats, see the guides to Table Analysis, Graphics Interpretation and Multi-Source Reasoning, or the overview of all five Data Insights question types.
Frequently asked questions
What is Two-Part Analysis on the GMAT?
Two-Part Analysis is a Data Insights question type in which you solve two connected problems and select one answer in each of two columns from a shared list of options. GMAC notes the questions can be quantitative, verbal or a mix of both.
Can both columns have the same answer in Two-Part Analysis?
Yes, unless the question says the selections must be different. Both columns use the same list of options, so the same option can be correct for both. Do not rule out an option just because you already selected it in the other column.
Is there partial credit for Two-Part Analysis?
Prep companies consistently report that there is not: you need both selections right for the question to count as correct. Always make a reasoned selection in both columns, even if you are unsure of one.
Can I use a calculator on Two-Part Analysis questions?
Yes. Two-Part Analysis is part of the Data Insights section, where GMAC provides an on-screen calculator. Estimating first is often faster, because the options are usually far apart.
How long should a Two-Part Analysis question take?
The Data Insights average is about 2 minutes 15 seconds per question. A quantitative Two-Part Analysis question with a clear equation can take less; a verbal one with long options may take closer to 3 minutes.