José María Franco Reverte - How To Succeed in EPSO Numerical Reasoning Tests (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. About the author
3. Approach to numerical reasoning exercises
3.1. Overview
3.2. EPSO numerical tests
3.3. Systematic method for solving these questions
3.4. Initial tips
3.5. Review of percentage calculations
3.6. Difference between percentages and percentage points
3.7. Operating with fractions
4. Sample questions
5. Analysing and solving questions
Five steps to solve the exercises
Exercise 1
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
Exercise 5
Exercise 6
Exercise 7
Exercise 8
Exercise 9
Exercise 10
6. Conclusions and recommendations
Appreciation to the reader
1. INTRODUCTION
This book aims to help prepare numerical reasoning tests for competitions
or selection procedures, especially those ones organised by the European
Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Administrators (AD), Assistants
(AST) and calls for contract agents (CAST), to get a job in the EU
institutions.
In my experience, I have found that, for many candidates, this type of tests
is really frightening, even for some smart graduates in Law, Politics, Arts,
or Humanities disciplines in general, probably because they have not
practised basic maths from their school years, so now they feel a kind of
mental ‘block’ when trying to interpret tables or graphs, and doing
calculations with the data provided.
For this reason, we will explain here the tools that you need to face a
numerical reasoning test without worries, making you feel sure about your
own skills to pass it comfortably.
First, we will show you how to approach to this type of exercises, giving an
overview about them and clarifying the particular conditions of EPSO tests,
as well as presenting our method to solve the numerical reasoning questions
and some initial tips.
Then, in the main part of this book, we will analyse in detail a series of
sample exercises, carefully chosen and very similar to the ones that you are
going to find in the actual exam.
As you have probably checked, the scarce materials available to prepare the
EPSO reasoning tests, even though they are good and have a large amount
of exercises, which is really advisable to practise, usually include a quite
short explanation of each solution, so this is often an obstacle to its full
understanding for many candidates with these difficulties in maths. In order
to overcome this problem, we will focus on a smaller number of exercises
(selected from the types more frequently found in actual tests), to explain
each one in depth, guiding you step-by-step along the process – mental and
technical – that will allow you to get to the right answer of every question.
In the end, we will summarise our conclusions and recommendations about
numerical reasoning tests, as a reminder to the reader.
I am sure that, as you work more with numbers by doing these exercises,
you will stop fearing calculations, even feeling comfortable with them. In
fact, you will realise that numbers can ‘speak’ to you somehow, giving
more information that you could expect from them at first sight (so they are
your allies, not your enemies!), as I will show you throughout this book.
Finally, I encourage you to devote enough time and effort to prepare your
selection procedures. No professional success of your life will be
comparable to the satisfaction and excitement of passing an open
competition, and getting a job at the public administration.
I wish my readers the best of luck.

2. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
He is an economist and official at the public administration in Spain, having

held several positions as a head of unit from 2009 to the present, mostly in
the areas of human resources, finance, programme management, law
enforcement and general administration.
He has been a successful candidate in the verbal, numerical and abstract

reasoning tests of the highly competitive EPSO Administrators' cycle and
the EPSO CAST Administration/HR FG IV.
He has also worked as a national expert at the European Commission,

provided training to civil servants, and coached many candidates for the
EPSO reasoning tests, helping them improve their numerical and abstract
thinking abilities.
3. APPROACH TO NUMERICAL REASONING EXERCISES
3.1. Overview
In general, with regard to numerical reasoning tests in open competitions

for the public administration as well as selection procedures for private
companies, we can find three main types of tests, according to the following
abilities that they measure:
Mental calculation : the ability to calculate quickly using basic

arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and
division), and also working with fractions and percentages.
Data interpretation : the skill to read and analyse properly the

information provided in tables, charts and graphs, in a fast
manner.
Numerical reasoning (itself): the talent in combining the two

previous proficiencies, mental calculation and data
interpretation, to answer a question that also requires our
deductive thinking.
As we will see later, the most challenging issue of these tests is not the
difficulty of the calculations (we only need basic maths), but the time limit
indeed.
3.2. EPSO numerical tests
The numerical reasoning tests of the competitions organised by EPSO

correspond to the third type above mentioned .
Following the text of most calls that include this exercise (AD, AST,
CAST), it is usually indicated that the pre-selection test or ‘first round’ of
the competitions comprises “a numerical reasoning test to assess your
ability to think logically and understand numerical information”.
The test, like the others of this phase (verbal and abstract reasoning ones), is
done using the computer, so they are called Computer-Based Tests (CBT).
Moreover, the format of this pre-selection round is based on Multiple-
Choice Questions (MCQ), so you need to perform your calculations to find
out which is the right answer from the four options offered.
The numerical reasoning test is composed of 10 questions and lasts 20

minutes. The pass-mark normally is 5/10 for both AD and AST
competitions. For the CAST calls, the pass-mark (10/20) is combined
between the numerical and abstract reasoning tests, so if your performance
were poor in one of these parts (e.g., 3/10), you could offset it by a good
result in the other part (i.e., 7/10 in this example), and eventually pass this
round.
Of course, we should pay attention to every particular call that we are going
to apply for, to check if some other conditions or pass-marks are
established.
On the other hand, the resources that you will have on your desk during the
exam, seeing the conditions of recent calls, are a physical calculator (apart
from the on-screen calculator usually provided), and a couple of laminated
sheets with erasable markers.
3.3. Systematic method for solving these questions
Probably the first issue that concerns the candidate when facing a numerical
reasoning question composed of several pieces of information (figures,
tables, charts…) is how to start or, more specifically, where to look at.
Our advice here is clear: you should start reading very carefully the
statement of the question , which will offer you many clues to decide what
kind of data you need to use to do your calculations. A little
misunderstanding about the information sought or the measurement units at
the beginning may be fatal for our purpose.
The next step will be to identify the relevant data in the tables and charts ,
according to the question. We will explain through many examples in
subsequent sections some techniques to make this quickly and efficiently.
Then, you should look at the answer options , to know if it will be possible
to make rough estimations to tell apart the right answer, or if you will have
to get exact results, depending on how close together the options are.
Later, we will have to choose the method for our calculations (estimation,
rule of three, equation, percentages, intuitive insight…), taking into account
the available data and the figures we need to find.
Finally, we will be able to solve the problem and match our result with the
options.
3.4. Initial tips
One common mistake of many candidates at the numerical reasoning tests

is trying to use very often the calculator, probably considering that this is
the reason why we have this tool (doubly available, in fact: physical and on-
screen), and maybe creating in their minds a (false) sense of security, by
thinking something like: “well, I am not very good in maths, but, at least,
everything I do with my calculator will be right…”.
On the contrary, we can affirm that an overuse of the calculator is indeed

the first pitfall that the candidate should avoid. EPSO does not organise
these tests to check how fast we can handle this instrument, which is of
course much more basic than any computer or calculation tool that
employees have today. The real target of this exercise is to evaluate our
ability to do simple mental calculations and identify relationships between
amounts from tables or graphs. So we will find many exercises in which we
will only need to use the calculator once or twice (even sometimes it is fully
unnecessary, as we will show in some of our sample questions).
Another issue that we should consider carefully is the unit, scale,

percentage or way of expression of the relevant magnitudes. A question can
mix data in different units (e.g., kilograms in the statement and tonnes in the
table), present some information in several scales (like thousands of
inhabitants in the answer options and millions of people in the chart), or put
together some figures in percentages and percentage points.
The third important matter to be aware of is time management . As we

previously said, the main obstacle to succeed in numerical reasoning tests is
not the complexity of calculations, but the time constraints. If we must
solve 10 questions in 20 minutes, we have 2 minutes per question. In this
way, it is easy to see how our progress is going; for example, we should
have responded the question number 5 having at least 10 minutes remaining
before the end of the exam.
At last, it is convenient to remember that there is no penalty for wrong

answers in this test, so it is a must to answer all the questions , even if we
had only a few seconds left and were forced to do it randomly for our last
responses, trying to choose the most likely ones, if possible.
3.5. Review of percentage calculations
A high number of questions from the EPSO tests require handling

calculation of percentages confidently. For example, to check the
percentage increase or decrease between two figures, or to find out the
initial amount of a period when they give us the final one and the rate of
increase/decrease.
Therefore, it is advisable to review our knowledge in this field, as we will

see next.
First, the traditional way to apply a percentage (for example, 25%) to a

number (for example, 80), as we know, is this one: we take the initial
amount, 80, and multiply it by 25/100 –this means, multiplying by 25 and
dividing by 100–, or even faster, just multiplying by 0.25. Thus, we get:
80 * 0.25 = 20.
After that, if it is a percentage of increase, we will add: 80 + 20 = 100, so

we will obtain that 80 increased by 25% is 100 .
And if it is a percentage of decrease, we will subtract: 80 - 20 = 60, so we
will obtain that 80 decreased by 25% is 60.
Knowing this, we should point out that there is a shortcut to do these

operations, which may help us (a lot!) to speed up our calculations.
We can use the reference to the unit (1) instead of the traditional 100%, so,
to increase a number by 25%, we add:
1 + 0.25 = 1.25 (mentally, so we save time)
And then we apply it to our initial amount:
80 * 1.25 = 100
Getting the same result above mentioned but in only one arithmetical
operation (one multiplication).
In the same way, to decrease a number by 25%, we subtract:

1 - 0.25 = 0.75 (mentally again)
And again we apply it to our initial amount:
80 * 0.75 = 60
Using this method, you will save valuable time, reducing the operations that
you have to perform and, often, your need of the calculator.
I recommend starting with ‘easy’ percentages and round numbers, both

multiplying and dividing (you can use the calculator when you need it), to
see for yourself their effect on the figures . For example:
To increase and decrease 200 by 25%

200 * 1.25 = 250
200 * 0.75 = 15 0

500 * 1.40 = 700
500 * 0.60 = 300

300 * 1.30 = 390
300 * 0.70 = 210
So, as you can see, when multiplying by more than the unit (1), we increase
the initial number, and, on the contrary, when multiplying by less than the
unit, we decrease the initial number.
As you get used to practise this shortcut, you will feel more comfortable to
do it with different and longer decimals.
For example, to increase by 1%, we can multiply by 1.01 (i.e., 1 + 0.01);

and to increase by 0.5%, we can multiply by 1.005 (i.e., 1 + 0.005).
With the same idea, to decrease by 1%, we can multiply by 0.99 (because it
is 1 - 0.01); and to decrease by 0.5%, we can multiply by 0.995 (because it
is 1 - 0.005).
Here we present some examples:
Increasing 200 by 1%
200 * 1.01 = 202
200 * 1.02 = 204
Decreasing 200 by 5%
200 * 0.95 = 190

200 * 0.85 = 170
Increasing 900 by 0.4%

900 * (1+0.004) = 900 * 1.004 = 903.6
Decreasing 900 by 3.5%

900 * (1-0.035) = 900 * 0.965 = 868.5
Do not worry if you feel that all this seems a bit difficult to you, because it
is just a matter of practice. Please try it at home with these few exercises
that we propose to you, and continue practicing on your own as much as
you need to feel comfortable with the operations:
Decreasing 500 by 12 %
(Solutions on the next page)

Solutions:
Final value: 505
Final value: 515
Final value: 475

Final value: 440

Final value: 100.7

Final value: 406

Final value: 598.2

Final value: 78 0
Now, let us suppose that, as it is often the case with the EPSO questions,
they provide us with the percentage increase and the final value, so that we
can calculate the initial one. For example:
If the final value is 202 and there has been an increase of 1%, what was the
initial figure?
First, with our ‘shortcut’ (or conversion to the unit), we know that
increasing 1% means multiplying by 1.01.
Now, we have to calculate a number (the unknown “X”) which multiplied

by 1.01 results in 202.
So we can express this:

X * 1.01 = 202
And to clear the X, we simply pass the figure 1.01 to the other side of the
equation, remembering that, as it is multiplying, it will go by dividing to the
opposite side:
X = 202 / 1.01
So, with the help of our calculator, we get that the initial value was 200.
Let us see another example:
Final value: 390

Percentage increase: 30% (so, 1+ 0.30 = 1.30)
What is the initial value ?
Again, we can set our expression:

X * 1.30 = 390
From where:
X = 390 / 1.30
X = 300
As you practise more and more, you will realise that you do not need to
always write the whole expression with X, but just doing the division to get
the result that you are looking for, and save time in this way. E.g.:
Final value: 204

Percentage increase: 2% (so 1.02)
The initial value is:

204 / 1.02 = 200
Other examples:
Final value: 700

Percentage increase: 40% (so 1.40)
Initial value = 700 / 1.40 = 500
Final value: 903.6

Percentage increase: 0.4% (so 1.004)
Initial value = 903.6/ 1.004 = 90 0
Note: you can see that we are using the same numbers as in other examples
above, so it is easier for you to check that this is just the reverse process
that the one we used to pass from initial values to final values.
Again we propose some exercises, based on the previous ones above, to

ease your practices:
Final value: 505

Percentage increase: 1%
Final value: 515

Final value: 100.7

Percentage increase: 0.7%
Final value: 406

Solutions:
Final value: 505

Initial value: 500
Final value: 515

Initial value: 500
Final value: 100.7

Initial value: 100
Final value: 406

Initial value: 400

Let us see what happens with percentages of decrease. Our method is the
same: first we use our ‘shortcut’ –conversion to the unit, but in this case we
will subtract from the unit as we saw–, and then we will multiply (or divide)
as usual to pass from initial values to final values (or vice versa). Next we
show some examples:
What was the initial value if there has been a decrease of 1% and the final
value is 198?
First, our conversion to the unit, subtracting in this case:

1 - 0.01 = 0.99
Now, we have to calculate a number (the unknown “X”) which multiplied

by 0.99 results in 198.
So we can express this:

X * 0.99 = 198
And then we clear the X:

X = 198 / 0.99
So we get that the initial value was 200.
Final value: 210

Percentage decrease: 30% (so, 1 - 0.30 = 0.70)
What was the initial value ?
Again, we can set our expression:

X * 0.70 = 210
From where:
X = 210 / 0.70
X = 300
We recommend practicing on your own with the following exercises:
Final value: 475

Percentage decrease: 5%
Final value: 440
Final value: 598.2

Percentage decrease: 0.3%
Final value: 780

Solutions:
Final value: 475

Initial value: 500
Final value: 440

Initial value: 500
Final value: 598.2

Initial value: 600
Final value: 780

Initial value: 80 0
As you can see in all the previous examples, and we already said, when
multiplying by more than the unit (1), we increase the initial value , and, on
the contrary, when multiplying by less than the unit, we decrease the initial
value . This is logical, because remember that when we multiply by 1, we
get exactly the same value, no change at all (so the unit is the ‘borderline’
here).
On the other side, when dividing by more than the unit, we decrease the
initial value , whilst dividing by less than the unit, we increase the initial
value . It works exactly the opposite than the multiplication, having again
the unit as the ‘borderline’ (so dividing by 1 means no variation, as we
know from basic maths).
This reminder can be quite useful at the exam, because there, with the
possible nerves and hurries, we could have some doubts in any of these
operations and sometimes ask to ourselves: should I multiply or divide in
this case?
It is simple: if you are looking for a higher number , you should multiply by
more than 1 or divide by less than 1; if you are looking for a lower number ,
you should multiply by less than 1 or divide by more than 1.
It is very important that, after your operations, you check the actual increase
or decrease in your calculated values , according to the question. For
example, if they give you a final value and there was an increase from the
initial period, your (calculated) initial value has to be lower than the final
one, to make possible the increase indicated in the statement.
3.6. Difference between percentages and percentage points
We should clearly distinguish between ‘percentages’ and ‘percentage

points’, to know well how to apply each of them.
As we have seen along the previous exercises, a percentage is a proportion

that takes number “100” as a reference .
For example, if a question says that the population of France is 14% of the
population of the EU, and the population of the EU is (in round figures) 500
million people, then we can calculate the population of France (the
unknown “X” in this case), using the “rule of three” that we all know from
basic maths and we are going to review here.
According to what we have said, “14%” indicates the proportion “14 to

100”, so our rule of three in this case will be:
14 is related to 100
As X is related to 500
And we can solve this by cross multiplication:

14 100
-----
X ----- 500
14 * 500 = X * 100
Clearing: X = 14 * 500 / 100
X = 70
So our answer to this question would be that the population of France is 70

million people .
Although it is very convenient to know well the rule of three as a procedure

of calculation, normally we will not use it for obtaining simple percentages
like the previous one, because it is more direct and fast to do:
The population of France is 14% of the population of the EU (500 million),

so
Population of France = 500 * 14% = 70 million
In case our calculator does not have the percent symbol (%), we could do
500 * 14 / 100 = 70 million
Using the proportion 14/100 as we did in our rule of three.
Or, even more directly, doing mentally the conversion to the unit that we
explained in the previous section: 14/100 = 0.14
Please note that here we are not increasing (or decreasing) a number, so we
do not have to add it to (or subtract it from) the unit, but just applying it to
our figure:
500 * 0.14 = 70 million
Of course, we get the same result as above.
Now, let us suppose that a question says that the population of France was
11% of the population of the EU in 2000, and this percentage has increased
by 18% in 2015. They do not give us the population of the EU, but they
simply ask us: what is the new percentage of the population of France over
the population of the EU in 2015?
Here, we have to increase the initial percentage, 11%, by a percentage

increase, 18%, according to the question. This is very similar to what we
have practised before when applying percentage increases to initial values:
in this case, our initial value is a percentage.
So we can say:
Initial value in 2000: 11%

Percentage increase: 18% (so, with our conversion, 1.18)
Final value in 2015:

11% * 1.18 = 12.98%
You could maybe ask: why not replacing the 11% by 0.11 too, using the
‘unit format’?
Well, of course you can do it in that way, and the process would be:
0.11 * 1.18 = 0.1298
But in this case, you will have to convert 0.1298 again into percentage
format, multiplying by 100, to get 12.98%, unless you are very used to see
both formats for yourself (I hope you will, after reading completely this
book!), so, anyway, my advice is to make it as simple as possible, and
reduce the number of operations you have to do: treating the 11% as any
other initial value in our previous examples, and solving the exercise in
only one multiplication as we did: 11% * 1.18 = 12.98%
You can practise now to increase and decrease some percentages with the
following examples, remembering that to apply percentage decreases we
subtract from the unit. E.g., decreasing by 5% is (1-0.05) = 0.9 5
Increasing 11% by 25%
Decreasing 10% by 5%

Solutions:
Initial value: 11%

Percentage increase: 25% (so, 1.25)
Final value: 11% * 1.25 = 13.75 %
Initial value: 10%

Percentage decrease: 5% (so, 0.95)
Final value: 10% * 0.95= 9.5%
Initial value: 24%

Final value: 24% * 1.03 = 24.72%

Initial value: 44%

Percentage decrease: 30% (so, 1-0.30 = 0.70)
Final value: 44% * 0.70= 30.8%
Initial value: 65%

Final value: 65% * 1.5 = 97.5%
Initial value: 80%

Percentage decrease: 80% (so, 1-0.80 = 0.20)
Final value: 80% * 0.20= 16%

Let us see now what the difference of working with percentage points is.
If a question says that France’s population is 11% of the population of the

EU in 2000, and it has increased by 2 percentage points in 2015, what is the
new percentage?
In this case, it is much easier to calculate the result, because they give us
directly the number of percentage points to add to the initial value. So we
just do:
11 + 2 = 13%
In this way, we get that the population of France represents a 13% of the
whole population of the EU in 2015.
Again here, we could work with the unit format, doing 0.11 + 0.02 = 0.13,
but we would have to change twice (from and to percentage formats),
slowing down our calculation process, so it would be useless.
Anyway, do not worry in this sense, because when you have practised a lot
of exercises, you will be able to better decide when to choose one or the
other format (percentage or unit) to speed up your calculations, and no
matter the format you choose, you will get the same result.
On the other hand, if a question provides us with percentage points of

decrease, we would have to subtract them from the initial value.
For example: if the population of Finland is 1.2% of the population of the

EU in 2000, and it has decreased by 0.2 percentage points in 2015, what is
the new percentage ?
Here we will do:

1.2 - 0.2 = 1%
And we get that the population of Finland represents the 1% of the whole
population of the EU in 2015.
As usual, we offer you a few examples of this, with the same figures that
we saw before, so you can better note the difference between both
procedures:
11% increased by 25 percentage points
10% decreased by 5 percentage points

Solutions :

11 + 25 = 36%

10 - 5 = 5%

24 + 3 = 27%

44 - 30 = 14%

65 + 50 = 115%

80 - 80 = 0%
3.7. Operating with fractions
In certain questions of our test, we may need to do calculations with

fractions, like adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing some of them.
For this reason, it is convenient to review the basic maths that we should
use to operate properly with this kind of numerical expressions.
Addition
a) Fractions with the same denominator:
We add the numerators, keeping the same denominator.
Example:
3/4 + 2/4 = 5/4
b) Fractions with different denominators:
We need to find a common denominator before adding the fractions. So we

have to calculate the lowest common denominator, usually by multiplying
the initial denominators, then expressing the equivalent fractions with this
lowest common denominator, and finally adding them up.
Example:
2/3 + 4/5
First, we find the lowest common denominator between 3 and 5, which is:
3*5=15
Then we have to express the equivalent fractions with this lowest common
denominator:
2/3 + 4/5 = ?/15 + ?/15
To convert 2/3 in an equivalent fraction with 15 in the denominator, we

have to consider that the denominator has been multiplied by 5 in this case,
passing from 3 to 15, so the numerator must be multiplied by 5 too:
2 * 5 = 10
And to convert 4/5 in an equivalent fraction with 15 in the denominator, we

4 * 3 = 12
In this way, we are able to express the initial addition by using other two
equivalent fractions that have the same denominator:
2/3 + 4/5 = 10/15 + 12/15
Finally, we can add both fractions in the way that we already know
(keeping the same denominator and adding the numerators up):
2/3 + 4/5 = 10/15 + 12/15 = 22/15
Subtraction
The procedure is the same that the one we have explained for the addition.
We can directly subtract fractions having the same denominator, keeping

the denominator unchanged and subtracting the numerators. For example:
3/4 - 2/4 = 1/ 4
If the denominators are different, we have to find the lowest common

denominator and express the equivalent fractions, to be able to subtract
them. For example:
2/3 - 4/5
As we saw before, their lowest common denominator is 15, and the

equivalent fractions are 10/15 and 12/15. So we have:
2/3 - 4/5 = 10/15 - 12/15
Finally, we can subtract the numerators to get our result:

2/3 - 4/5 = 10/15 - 12/15 = -2/15

6/5 - 7/8
Their lowest common denominator is 5 * 8 = 40, and the equivalent

fractions are calculated in the following way.
To convert 6/5 in an equivalent fraction with 40 in the denominator, we

6 * 8 = 48 ➔ new first fraction is 48/40.
And to convert 7/8 in an equivalent fraction with 40 in the denominator, we

7 * 5 = 35 ➔ new second fraction is 35/40 .
Then, we can easily subtract the new equivalent fractions, as in the previous
example:
6/5 - 7/8 = 48/40 - 35/40 = 13/40
Multiplication
We should follow two steps:
1) Reducing or simplifying fractions, by using prime factorisation: this

means to decompose fractions into prime numbers (natural numbers that
cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers).
2) Multiplying fractions “in line”: this is multiplying numerators together

on one side and denominators together on the other side.
Example 1:
(2/3) * (4/5)
We cannot reduce these fractions (only number 4 can be expressed as 2 * 2

but not simplified with other numbers here), so we just multiply them in
line:
- the numerators: 2 * 4 = 8
- the denominators: 3 * 5 = 15
And accordingly the result is:

(2/3) * (4/5) = 8/15
Example 2:
(4/8) * (15/9)
We can reduce both fractions, factorising (decomposing) them into prime

numbers:
4 is 2 * 2
8 is 2 * 2 * 2
15 is 3 * 5
9 is 3 * 3
So we can express:
(4/8) * (15/9) = [(2 * 2) / (2 * 2 * 2)] * [(3 * 5) / (3 * 3)]
Then, we clear numbers being at the same time in the numerator and
denominator:
(4/8) * (15/9) = [(2 * 2 ) / (2 * 2 * 2)] * [(3 * 5) / (3 * 3)]
In this way, we get nothing in the first numerator, after clearing 2 * 2, so not
having any number it is equivalent to have the unit (1), and in the first
denominator we have the number 2. Therefore, our first fraction becomes
1/2.
In the second fraction, we clear number 3 in both numerator and

denominator, so it turns 5/3.
Finally, we can easily multiply the simplified fractions in line:

(1/2) * (5/3 )
So the result is:

(1/2) * (5/3) = 5/6
Note: when you have more practice, you do not need to use the factorisation
process, being able to mentally simplify fractions; e.g., you can see that 4/8
is equivalent to 1/2 (after dividing up and down by 4), and 15/9 is the same
as 5/3 (after dividing up and down by 3).
Division
The procedure is quite similar to the one that we use for the multiplication,
but adding a new step at the beginning.
Let us suppose that we have to divide these two fractions:

(A/B) / (C/D)
We can turn the division into multiplication by reversing the order of the
second one (that is, changing positions of the numerator and denominator):
(A/B) * (D/C)
And then proceeding as in a common multiplication: reducing fractions and

multiplying in line.
Example 1:
(2/3) / (7/5)
First we turn it into multiplication, by reversing the second fraction:

(2/3) / (7/5) = (2/3) * (5/7)
Then we check if we can simplify it (we cannot in this case) and we just
multiply in line:
So the result is:

(2/3) / (7/5) = (2/3) * (5/7) = 10/21
Example 2:
(4/6) / (5/8)
Again we start turning it into multiplication, by reversing the second

fraction:
(4/6) / (5/8) = (4/6) * (8/5)
Then we check if we can reduce it, which is possible here in the first
fraction:
4/6 is equivalent to 2/3 (after dividing up and down by 2)
So finally we can multiply in line and solve:

(4/6) / (5/8) = (4/6) * (8/5) = (2/3) * (8/5) = 16/15
After multiplying in this last step:

Exercises to practise
We present some exercises for you to practise operating with fractions.
1) Addition
8/5 + 9/5 =
4/7 + 6/5 =
2) Subtraction
6/7 - 4/7 =
7/8 - 9/10 =
3) Multiplication
(1/6) * (4/9) =
(10/25) * (8/16) =
4) Division
(3/4) / (2/5) =
(6/9) / (4/10) =
Solutions:
1) Addition
8/5 + 9/5 = 17/5
4/7 + 6/5 = 20/35 + 42/35 = 62/35
2) Subtraction
6/7 - 4/7 = 2/7
7/8 - 9/10 = 35/40 - 36/40 = -1/40
(Note that the lowest common denominator here is not 80, because 40 is
also a multiple of both, 8 and 10. Anyway, you could have also used that
one: 70/80 - 72/80 = -2/80, and then reducing to -1/40).
3) Multiplication
(1/6) * (4/9) = 4/54 = 2/27
(10/25) * (8/16) = (2/5) * (1/2) = ( 2 /5) * (1/ 2 ) = 1/5
4) Division
(3/4) / (2/5) = (3/4) * (5/2) = 15/8
(6/9) / (4/10) = (6/9) * (10/4) = ( 2 /3) * (5/ 2 ) = 5/ 3

4. SAMPLE QUESTIONS
In this chapter, we are going to initially provide the questions and answers
as you will find them at the actual test, that is, without any comment or tip
from us, so you can try to solve them on your own. Later, after reading our
solutions, this section will also allow you to practise again by repeating the
exercises [1] .
Exercise 1
According to the table, what is the total number of students in higher

education in Sweden?
French-speaking courses in higher education in various EU countries
Country Number of Students participating in French-speaking
institutions providing courses
French-speaking Number Proportion to total
courses number (%)
France 74 5840 0,28
Sweden 34 5117 2,02
Belgium 17 4954 0,90
Romania 7 1751 0,88
a) 25 332
b) 103 363
c) 173 978
d) 253 317
Exercise 2
In how many of the four countries was life expectancy at birth at least 80.0
years in 2005?
Life expectancy at birth (in years), 2010

The Netherlands 80.3
Spain 80.6
Germany 81.8
Czech Republic 75.6
Increase in life expectancy at birth (%), 2005-2010

The Netherlands 1.5
Spain 1.4
Germany 1.9
Czech Republic 2.0
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
Exercise 3
On which day was the price of the ticket to Alicante 15 GBP higher than the
price of the ticket to Dublin?
Last minute changes in air ticket price

(compared to the price 5 days prior departure)
Day -5 Day -4 Day -3 Day -2 Day -1 Day of
travel
Berlin- 0% 5% 10% 15% 15% 25%
Alicante
Berlin- 0% -10% -10% -5% 25% 40%
Dublin
Berlin-Paris 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 35%
Berlin-Alicante Berlin-Dublin Berlin-Paris

Price 5 days prior
60 50 80
departure (GBP)
a) Day -5
b) Day -4
c) Day -3
d) Day -2
e) None of the above
Exercise 4
According to the tables below, and knowing that natural births in the
Netherlands are 20% higher than the EU average, how many natural births
were there in this country?
Population (thousands) Births (thousands)

The Netherlands 10415 174
United Kingdom 61013 1002
Germany 82409 1214
Poland 58645 1105
Italy 43060 644
Average rate of births in the EU (%)

Natural 34.2
Medically assisted 20.9
Caesarean 40.6
At home 4.3
a) 71410
b) 94308
c) 121302
d) 49083
e) 27299
Exercise 5
In what year was the demographic decline of Romania the highest?
Births and deaths in Romania

Year Viable births per 1000 Deaths per 1000 Deaths under one
inhabitants inhabitants year old per 1000
viable births
2001 9,6 13,3 9,2
2002 9,5 13,1 7,2
2003 9,3 13,4 7,3
2004 9,4 13,1 6,6
a) 2001
b) 2002
c) 2003
d) 2004
Exercise 6
How many more octogenarians had Japan in 2010 compared to the United
Kingdom and Finland together?
Octogenarian people (aged between 80 and 90)

Population in
2010 2010 2015 2020 est. 2025 est.
(thousands)
United Kingdom 62637 5,5 6,1 6,3 6,5
Japan 82057 5,1 5,8 7,2 7,8
Italy 45317 5 5,7 5,8 6,1
Finland 9293 5,3 5,3 5,5 6,5
Albania 7595 5 5,4 5,8 6,5
a) 127000
b) 183000
c) 247000
d) 294000
e) 321000
Exercise 7
Martina and Klaus rent an apartment in Brussels and Luxembourg

respectively. Martina pays 900 euros in rent and the floor area of her
apartment is two thirds that of Klaus’ apartment. What can one tell about
the rent on Klaus’ apartment?
a) It is half the rent on Martina’s apartment.

b) It is 100 euros less than the rent on Martina’s apartment.
c) It is 50% higher than the rent on Martina’s apartment.
d) It is 100% higher than the rent on Martina’s apartment.
e) None of the above statements is correct.
Exercise 8
Which of these shares recorded a price increase of less than 10% between
Monday and Tuesday?
Evolution of share prices

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Zebra
180 200 210 224
Communities
Ionis Technologies 200 220 220 210
Lifestyle
110 122 118 130
Group
Ocado Properties 210 230 220 200
Sun
185 205 210 190
Pharmaceuticals
a) Zebra Communities.
b) Ionis Technologies.
c) Lifestyle Group.
d) Ocado Properties.
e) Sun Pharmaceuticals.
Exercise 9
In France, the percentage of family units with children decreased by 20%

between 2000 and 2010. In 2010, there was 360 000 family units with no
children. What was the percentage of family units with no children in 2010?
a) 36%.
b) 60%.
c) 64%.
d) 80%.
e) Impossible to tell.
Exercise 10
In a selective course organised by the EU police agency, EUROPOL, there

are two classes: a class for non-commissioned officers (NCO), in which
there are three women for every five men, and a class for officers, in which
there are as many women as men. Having into account the information
collected in the chart, what can be said about the average size of the
candidates?
a) It is smaller in class for NCO than in class for officers.

b) It is higher in class for NCO than in class for officers.
c) It is identical in both classes.
d) The average size of the men is 179 cm in the two classes together.
e) The average size of the men exceeds the average size of the women by 9
cm in the two classes together.
5. ANALYSING AND SOLVING QUESTIONS
Five steps to solve the exercises
Before start solving the questions, let us review the approach to numerical
reasoning tests that we explained at the beginning of our book, by listing
the following steps:
1) Read very carefully the statement of the question.
2) Identify the relevant data in the tables and charts.
3) Look at the answer options (check if you can use rough estimations).
4) Choose the method for your calculations (applying percentages, rule of

three, equation, intuitive approach…)
5) Perform the calculations and match your result against the options.
Next, we will show our method to solve every exercise with a detailed
explanation, including its potential ‘shortcuts’ and ‘pitfalls’, as well as my
advice on the calculation process that could be useful for you to face other
similar questions in your tests.
Exercise 1
According to the table, what is the total number of students in higher

education in Sweden?
French-speaking courses in higher education

courses number (%)
France 74 5840 0,28
Sweden 34 5117 2,02
Belgium 17 4954 0,90
Romania 7 1751 0,88
a) 25 332
b) 103 363
c) 173 978
d) 253 317
Solution:
First, the statement of the question (always important to read and reread it
carefully) asks us about a total number of students in higher education in
Sweden. So, seeing that they are asking us only about Sweden, we can
forget all the other countries and their figures. To make this effectively, we
should use the ‘black out technique’ . This method consists of mentally
blacking out the rows and/or columns that we do not need – that is, to act as
if they did not exist .
In this way, we can black out (and ignore) all data referred to countries that
are not required to solve this question: France, Belgium and Romania.
French-speaking courses in higher education

courses number (%)
Sweden 34 5117 2,02
Then, we interpret the data for Sweden. We can see in the first column
(number of institutions) that there are 34 institutions. But they are asking us
about a number of students, not institutions, so (unless we find later any
relationship or “ratio” between students and institutions) we will not need
this figure to solve the question, in principle. As you will find in many
exercises of EPSO numerical reasoning tests, it is frequent that they provide
you with more information than you really need (a pitfall), to check if you
are able to select the right data.
Now, let's focus on the two following columns, number of students

participating in French-speaking courses and proportion to total. We can
observe that there are 5117 students in French-speaking courses,
representing 2.02% of total number of students. So we just need to calculate
which this total number is, according to the question's statement. How to do
this?
It is easy as you are going to see. We just have to use the rule of three that
we already practised: if 5117 students are 2.02%, then X students are 100%.
5117 ----- 2.02

X ----- 100
X = 5117 * 100 / 2.02 = 253316.83.
Finally, we should round the figure to the closer whole number (because we
cannot have a half or a third of a student!), so our number is 253317
students, which matches exactly the last option we have, and therefore, the
right one.
Note that we have solved the question just using two figures from that large
table of data.
My advice
1) To gain time in the exam, I always try to simplify my calculations as

much as possible. For this reason, I rarely use numbers in percentage
format, but their equivalents referred to the unit (1), as we saw in previous
chapters.
So, in this exercise, I would convert 2.02% into 0.0202 (you can get this by
dividing 2.02/100 with your calculator). When you get used to this change,
you will not need to make the division by 100: you will simply move the
decimal point two places to the left, to get the figure directly.
Thus, when they give me percentages and I make this conversion, I do not
have to use the 'long version' of the rule of three that we have seen in the
exercise, but a faster one. In principle, with the usual rule of three, I would
say now :
If 5117 students are 0.0202, then X students are 1.
5117 ----- 0.0202

X ----- 1
So, X = 5117 * 1 / 0.0202 = 253316.83, getting the same result.
But the good thing is, when you multiply by 1, this is always neutral , so we
can eliminate this step too, just doing:
X = 5117 / 0.0202 = 253316.83, and solving the whole exercise just with
one division.
So, our lesson to learn here is that if an exercise gives you a partial number
(of students or whatever) and its proportion to the total number of them,
asking you to calculate that total number, you only need to divide:
Partial number / Proportion to total number
2) When you have reviewed this exercise several times and you feel more
comfortable with percentage calculation, maybe you will be able to use the
faster and more intuitive approach to get percentages of figures that I am
going to present here too.
Think that, when they give you a number (5117) and a percentage to apply
(0.0202), you can only make two logical operations: multiplying or
dividing. Which one should you choose ?
It depends on the number you are looking for. Is it larger or smaller? Just
consider the effect of multiplying or dividing by less than 1 , as we
explained before.
If I multiply both figures (5117 * 0.0202), I will obtain a smaller number (I

am multiplying by less than 1), in fact a number around 103, so this would
not match the result that I am looking for, obviously, because the total
number of students has to be larger than a partial number of them.
If I divide them, as in our solution, I will get a larger number (I am dividing

by less than 1), which is exactly what I need, the total number of students.
Exercise 2
In how many of the four countries was life expectancy at birth at least 80.0
years in 2005?
Life expectancy at birth (in years), 2010

The Netherlands 80.3
Spain 80.6
Germany 81.8
Czech Republic 75.6
Increase in life expectancy at birth (%), 2005-2010

The Netherlands 1.5
Spain 1.4
Germany 1.9
Czech Republic 2.0
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
Solution:
In this exercise, they asks us about the life expectancy in 2005, giving us
the life expectancy in 2010 (first table) and the increase 2005-2010 (second
table). We will need to calculate it for all the countries in the table, because
they want to know “how many of the four countries have at least 80.0 years
in 2005” .
So, first, we should think: how to convert the 2010 figures we have into the
2005 figures we need for the question? For this purpose, we have the
increase 2005-2010 in the second chart.
Then, we have to apply the percentage of increase to the figures. Note that,
in this case, we need to calculate “back in time” , taking the figure in 2010
to find our target in 2005.
You will find this same issue in many exercises (so this sample will be very
useful for you), because EPSO normally does not want to ask something
very easy, like saying: you have 20 people in 2000, an increase of 50% for
the period 2000-2015, how many people do you have in 2015? Obviously,
20 * (1+0.5) = 30. They want us to think a bit more and to use numerical
reasoning, so they prefer the reverse question.
Besides, to calculate an increase or decrease of initial numbers, remember

that you need to add it to the unit, for increasing (e.g., 1+0.5 = 1.5 to
increase 50%) or subtract it from the unit, for decreasing (e.g., 1-0.2 = 0.8
to decrease 20%), as we detailed in several examples. Otherwise, you
would get only the strict quantity of increase/decrease, but not the whole
new figure.
We start with the Netherlands. You can see its increase between 2005 and
2010 was 1.5%. Its final value in 2010 is 80.3 years. So, what was the
initial value in 2005?
Step-by-step: let us say that the figure in 2005 is X, the unknown value. If
we increase it with the percentage increase, 1.5%, or more directly (with
our conversion), 0.015, we should get the final value in 2010, 80.3 years.
So our expression is:

X * (1+0.015) = 80.3
From where
X = 80.3 / 1.015 = 79.1 years.
Now we can do the same with the other countries.
For Spain, X * (1+0.014) = 80.6, from where X = 80.6 / 1.014 = 79.5 years.
For Germany, X * (1+0.019) = 81.8, from where X = 81.8 / 1.019 = 80.3
years.
For the Czech Republic, X * (1+0.02) = 75.6, from where X = 75.6 / 1.02 =
74.1 years.
Finally, we can check that only in one country (Germany), the figure for
2005 that we have calculated is, at least, 80.0 years, so our answer to the
question is 1.
My advice
1) With the purpose of saving time, first we should check if we can avoid
any of the calculations. For example here, having a fast look to the charts,
we see that all the countries had percentages of increase for the period
2005-2010. None of them had a decrease. This means that all the initial
values in these four countries were increased between 2005 and 2010, so
the figures we should calculate for 2005 have to be necessarily smaller than
the ones we have for 2010 in the first table. Therefore, if the Czech
Republic had 75.6 years in 2010 (already smaller than 80.0, our target for
this question) and its initial value in 2005 had to be even smaller, I do not
need to calculate it, because for sure it will be smaller than 80.0 years too.
2) I recommend practising a lot with applying percentages, both multiplying

and dividing, as we did in previous chapters, to see for yourself their effect
on the figures. Also with numbers over and under the unit, until you get
familiar with all of them, being able to quickly know which operation you
should use (or can expect) to increase or decrease a value . You can start
with easy and round numbers, to facilitate your task, for example:
1000 * 1.2 = 1200

1000 * 0.8 = 800
900 / 1.5 = 600
900 / 0.5 = 1800
Exercise 3
On which day was the price of the ticket to Alicante 15 GBP higher than the
price of the ticket to Dublin?

Day -5 Day -4 Day -3 Day -2 Day -1 Day of
travel
Berlin- 0% 5% 10% 15% 15% 25%
Alicante
Berlin- 0% -10% -10% -5% 25% 40%
Dublin
Berlin-Paris 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 35%
Berlin-Alicante Berlin-Dublin Berlin-Paris

Price 5 days prior
60 50 80
departure (GBP)
a) Day -5
b) Day -4
c) Day -3
d) Day -2
e) None of the above
Solution:
This exercise may seem quite hard (apparently), combining a table with
daily variation in prices of different flights, and a table with prices, so it is a
good example to learn how to avoid 'feeling panic' while facing this type of
combined information.
First of all, a little trick that I used to feel more comfortable with these
exercises about flights, trains or travel planning: imagine yourself in a
practical situation in which you have to buy your flight tickets and need to
know when the prices are higher/cheaper, so you want to be able to find the
answer for your own interest, not even for the exam purposes! These
calculations may be of use for us in our daily life.
Focusing on the statement of the question, which we should read at least

twice, we need to know on which day the ticket price to Alicante was 15
GBP higher than the one to Dublin.
As we said in our approach to numerical reasoning questions, it is always a

good idea, in any exercise, to have a fast look to the possible answers that
they show you. In this case, we find the previous days to the travel, from 5
to 2 days prior departure, and even an option “none of the above”, which
usually makes more difficult to answer a question, because often you can
make calculations until one of your results matches one of the options, but
here we have the possibility of not getting any of the alternatives. Anyway,
in this exercise, we do not have the options “Day -1” and “Day of travel”,
so even if these days met the condition, we would have to answer “none of
the above”. Therefore, we can skip them in our calculations .
Now we should focus on analysing the prices to Alicante and to Dublin.

Note that the departure city is Berlin in all the cases. We can skip the
evolution in prices to Paris and also its price on the second chart, so we
should mentally black out the corresponding row and column, as well as the
columns for Day -1 and Day of travel, for the above-mentioned reason.

Day -5 Day -4 Day -3 Day -2
Berlin- 0% 5% 10% 15%
Alicante
Berlin- 0% -10% -10% -5%
Dublin
Berlin-Alicante Berlin-Dublin
Price 5 days prior
60 50
departure (GBP)
Next, we observe that we have the initial prices for Day -5 in GBP (by the
way, the same currency that we need in the question, so not necessary to
make currency exchange in this exercise, fortunately!). The initial prices are
60 for Alicante and 50 for Dublin. We can clearly see that on this day the
difference in prices was 60 - 50 = 10 GBP, so this is not the target we are
looking for, which is a difference of 15 GBP, according to the question's
statement .
Let us go step-by-step to analyse the subsequent changes in prices.
The column “Day -5” of the first table shows 0% for both flights, logically,
because there must be no variation with respect to the prices of the same
day (5 days prior departure) that this table presents.
What happened on the following day, Day -4? Price to Alicante went up
5%, so we should increase 5% the initial price, 60, which is, using our fast
conversion from other exercises: 60 * 1.05 = 63.
On the other hand, Dublin’s initial price for Day -4 went down -10%, so we
have here that: 50 * (1-0.1) = 50 * 0.9 = 45.
Then, we are able to calculate the difference in price between the two
flights for Day -4, which was: 63 - 45 = 18 GBP. Again, this is not the
target we are looking for (15 GBP difference).
We carry out the same operations for Day -3. It is important here to note
that the percentages of increase or decrease are “compared to the price 5
days prior departure”, according to the chart title, so we should apply the
percentages always to the initial numbers (Alicante, 60; Dublin, 50), and
not to the previous day figures we have calculated. This pitfall could cause
decisive mistakes to some candidates who did not read carefully enough all
the information of the exercise. Our calculations for this day are:
Alicante (10%): 60 * 1.1 = 66

Dublin (-10%): 50 * 0.9 = 45. Note that it is exactly the same variation,
-10%, as the previous day (Day -4), so not necessary to repeat it if you
realised .
The difference between them is 66 - 45 = 21 GBP, so again not our target.
Now we go to Day -2. Remember to use the initial figures. So we have:
Alicante (15%): 60 * 1.15 = 69

Dublin (-5%): 50 * (1-0.05) = 50 * 0.95 = 47.5
The difference between them is 69 - 47.5 = 21.5 GBP, not our target either.
So, finally, we should mark the last option: none of the above is correct.
My advice
1) There is a nice shortcut in this exercise that probably most candidates

would not see, especially in the rush of an exam, because it is necessary to
have a very keen eye with charts and numerical data. I am going to explain
it, even to beginning candidates, because I am sure that, with more practice,
they will be able to see it too.
After we have calculated the difference in price between Alicante and

Dublin flights for Day -4, which is 18 GBP, higher than our target (15
GBP), we could have a look again to the chart, more attentively this time, to
realise that, for Day -3, the difference between the two prices has to be even
larger now, because Dublin remained at the same point (-10%) but Alicante
raised to 10%. Therefore, if the difference is larger than the one of the
previous day (18 GBP), could it be 15 GBP as we are looking for our
target? Obviously not, so we should skip this option too.
And going to Day -2 in the table, we can observe that the difference
between the two prices has to be approximately the same as in Day -3,
because they both went up 5% from the previous percentages, so again this
will be a larger difference than 18 GBP and, of course, larger than 15 GBP.
For these reason, we could discard this option too and get our final
conclusion directly: none of the options is right.
At this point, you could maybe discuss this reasoning by saying: well, but
here we are comparing only percentages in the chart, we cannot know the
real price in pounds (GBP) for each day if we do not perform the
calculations, to be sure about the price differences.
This objection would be fully right, if the table showed us the changes in
price compared to the previous day, forcing us to calculate the figures for
every day. However, in this exercise, the selection board gives us a “little
present”, for sure intentionally, when saying that all the percentages are
referred to the price 5 days prior departure (Day -5), so we have a constant
initial number to apply all the percentages, which allows us to compare
differences between days directly and deduce that there has to be a larger
difference for Day -3 and Day -2 in relation to Day -4.
2) Do not worry if you need 20 or 30 seconds (from our 2 minutes available

per question) to think about your approach to a question. This is better than
start calculating fast without knowing exactly how to get the target you are
looking for. Sometimes even spending one minute thinking, to reduce our
calculations to only one operation, can be really profitable in some
questions, as we saw in Exercise 1 and now again in this exercise, where
eventually we only need to calculate Day -4.
3) I have found this same kind of shortcuts in a lot of EPSO questions, even
reducing your task to just one operation, and simpler than this exercise,
because they do not really want to check our ability and speed in using a
calculator (this is not necessary at all in our world of computers today), but
our skills to interpret data and charts, especially simplifying calculations
and finding solutions. In fact, this is what 'numerical reasoning' is about:
using your thinking with numbers, rather than your hands.
In any case, please do not feel frustrated if you do not see all the shortcuts
of questions, because you do not need them to get a good mark in the exam:
with two minutes per question, we have time enough to do all the
calculations of these exercises. Sometimes you could even do them just to
check if your shortcuts were right. I recommend using at least the
conversion from percentage to unit format as we have practised, to simplify
a lot your task.
Exercise 4
According to the tables below, and knowing that natural births in the
Netherlands are 20% higher than the EU average, how many natural births
were there in this country?

United Kingdom 61013 1002
Germany 82409 1214
Poland 58645 1105
Italy 43060 644
Average rate of births in the EU (%)

Natural 34.2
Medically assisted 20.9
Caesarean 40.6
At home 4.3
a) 71410
b) 94308
c) 121302
d) 49083
e) 27299
Solution:
According to the statement of the question, we have to calculate the number

of natural births in the Netherlands.
In the first table, we have the population and births of five countries. The
second table shows us a distribution about types of births in the EU.
As we said in our initial approach, the first challenge for beginners in

numerical reasoning tests when facing exercises with several charts, like
this one, is: where should I look at?
In this case, we need to calculate only the data for the Netherlands (you
should reread the question to make sure), so we can focus our attention on
the first row of the first table, and forget all the others, mentally using the
black out technique that we already know.

Besides, the question’s statement only mentions births, not population data,
so probably we will have to use the total number of births in the
Netherlands, 174 thousands.
The statement also indicates the relationship between the natural births in
the Netherlands and the EU average, being 20% higher. So it leads us to
look for this EU average in the second table, an average that, for natural
births, is 34.2%.
Now we are able to calculate the rate of natural births in the Netherlands,
just increasing the EU average, 34.2%, by 20%, in this way:
34.2% x 1.20 = 41.04%
Note: I used the method that we already know for increasing values, but of
course you may still prefer using the whole process:
34.2% * (1 + 0.20) = 41.04%
By the way, you could also think of transforming all the percentages into
unit format, if you are a faithful follower of my advice (I would be very
proud of you in that case!), getting of course the same result:
0.342 * 1.20 = 0.4104
If you do so, you must remember to remove the percentage symbol (%) to
avoid later confusions.
Finally, we apply the rate of natural births in the Netherlands, 41.04%, to its
total number of births, 174 thousands:
174 * 41.04% = 71.4096 thousands
Or also using the format 0.4104:

174 * 0.4104 = 71.4096 thousands
We just need to convert this amount in thousands, multiplying by 1000, and

rounding to the closest entire number (because it is a number of births) .
71.4096 * 1000 = 71409.6 ==> 71410 natural births in the Netherlands
So answer option a) is right.
My advice
In many questions at your exam, you will not need to make the final
conversion from thousands, millions, etc., when the answer options are very
different from one another, like in this exercise: you can directly observe
that the penultimate result, 71.4096, only matches the first figures of one of
the options (starting by 714…), so it has to be the right one.
For the same reason, in a lot of exercises, it is not necessary to round

figures to entire numbers , because your next-to-last result, 71.4096 here,
clearly only fits with one answer option, so you can skip this last step and
save time.
Exercise 5
In what year was the demographic decline of Romania the highest?
Births and deaths in Romania

Year Viable births per 1000 Deaths per 1000 Deaths under one
inhabitants inhabitants year old per 1000
viable births
2001 9,6 13,3 9,2
2002 9,5 13,1 7,2
2003 9,3 13,4 7,3
2004 9,4 13,1 6,6
a) 2001
b) 2002
c) 2003
d) 2004
Solution:
In this exercise, we need to find the year with the highest demographic
decline in Romania, which is the same as saying the highest reduction of its
population.
According to the table, we have the births and deaths per 1000 inhabitants
in Romania for 4 years (2001-2004).
Some candidates could maybe feel frustrated with this question, when they
are not able to find the figure of the Romanian population to start their
calculations. But this is a little pitfall. We do not really need to know the
population of Romania to solve this question, because all data in the table
are referred to 1000 inhabitants. So we may suppose that the entire
Romanian population is just 1000 people, and our results to compare
decreases in population have to be the same, in relative terms.
A big pitfall of this exercise is the last column, “Deaths under one year old
per 1000 viable births”, which we do not have to use because those figures
have to be necessarily included in the number of deaths (note that the
second column about deaths does not distinguish or exclude anyone by
age).
Now, we calculate the demographic decline or reduction for each year.

Intuitively, we know that the population increase is usually obtained by the
subtraction: births minus deaths . So, to calculate the population decrease or
reduction, we must do the opposite: deaths minus births [2] .
In 2001: 13,3 - 9,6 = 3,7

In 2002: 13,1 - 9,5 = 3,6
In 2003: 13,4 - 9,3 = 4,1
In 2004: 13,1 - 9,4 = 3,7
As you see, we have kept the decimal comma that shows the table in this
exercise, to make you practice this notation system too, considering that the
EPSO database questions may use both systems (point and comma) to
separate decimals .
Therefore, the highest reduction in population (or demographic decline) in

Romania was in 2003.
My advice
Here it is more important the data interpretation than the calculations,

which are simple subtractions, as you have seen.
We have to pay attention to the way of obtaining the demographic decline:

deaths reduce population and births increase it. So to get the decrease in
population, we do deaths minus births.
No problem if you were a very good student of social sciences at school and
prefer to use the traditional formula:
Population growth = births - deaths +/- migrations
In this case, you are going to obtain the same figures, but with the negative
sign:
In 2001: -3,7
In 2002: -3,6
In 2003: -4,1
In 2004: -3,7
Accordingly, -4,1 would be again the highest reduction in population or

demographic decline in this country.
Exercise 6
How many more octogenarians had Japan in 2010 compared to the United
Kingdom and Finland together?

Population in
2010 2010 2015 2020 est. 2025 est.
(thousands)
United Kingdom 62637 5,5 6,1 6,3 6,5
Japan 82057 5,1 5,8 7,2 7,8
Italy 45317 5 5,7 5,8 6,1
Finland 9293 5,3 5,3 5,5 6,5
Albania 7595 5 5,4 5,8 6,5
a) 127000
b) 183000
c) 247000
d) 294000
e) 321000
Solution:
When reading carefully the question’s statement, we find that we must

calculate the number of octogenarian people in the United Kingdom,
Finland and Japan to be able to compare the two first countries together
with the third one, all this in 2010 .
We can mentally skip all the other countries and years in the table, through
our black out technique :

Population in
2010 2010
(thousands)
United Kingdom 62637 5,5
Japan 82057 5,1
Finland 9293 5,3

Let us start with the United Kingdom. Its population is 62637 thousands in
2010, having 5,5% of octogenarian people in that year 2010 (it is really
important to check that it is the same year before applying this percentage).
So we just do a multiplication to get the number of octogenarian people in
2010:
62637 x 5,5% = 3445,035 thousands
Again here, we have kept the notation system with decimal comma.
We follow the same procedure for Finland, with a population of 9293

thousands and 5,3% of octogenarian people:
9293 x 5,3% = 492,529 thousands
The addition of octogenarian people from these two countries, the United
Kingdom and Finland, is then:
3445,035 + 492,529 = 3937,564 thousand s
Now we calculate the same figure for Japan, using its data from the table:
82057 x 5,1% = 4184,907 thousands
Finally, we are in position to obtain the difference between the number of

octogenarian people in Japan and the same figure for the United Kingdom
and Finland together:
4184,907 - 3937,564 = 247,343 thousands, which only matches the answer
option c) 247000.
My advice
1) If we have an attentive look at the answer options in advance, which is

always my recommendation, we can note that all of them are figures
rounded to thousands. This means that it is possible to make rough
estimations in this exercise, without running a risk of subsequent confusions
for too close answer options. So we do not need to calculate and keep the
decimals in every step, as we did for your better understanding, but simply
use figures rounded to thousands, in the following way:
United Kingdom: 62637 x 5,5% = 3445 thousands

Finland: 9293 x 5,3% = 493 thousands
Addition 2 countries = 3445 + 493 = 3938 thousands
Japan: 82057 x 5,1% = 4185 thousands
Difference = 4185 - 3938 = 247 thousands
2) We could also use here our conversion of percentages to unit format, e.g.,
0,055 instead of 5,5%; 0,053 instead of 5,3% and so on, obtaining of course
the same results. If your calculator (physical or on-screen) at the test centre
includes the button for getting percentages (%), then it will be faster to key
in, for example, 5-point-5-% , in the traditional way. Otherwise, and quite
frequently with the very basic calculators of the test centres, it is faster to
key in 0.055 (five clicks) than multiplying by 5.5 and then dividing by 100
(at least seven clicks).
In any case, this conversion is much more useful to speed up our

calculations when it is about percentage increases or decreases, as we
already saw (e.g., 1.05, 1.10, 0.95, 0.90…), than in this exercise.
Exercise 7
Martina and Klaus rent an apartment in Brussels and Luxembourg

respectively. Martina pays 900 euros in rent and the floor area of her
apartment is two thirds that of Klaus’ apartment. What can one tell about
the rent on Klaus’ apartment?

Solution:
Seeing that the statement of the question provides us with several pieces of
information about the situation of two people renting an apartment in two
cities, we should first put all data in order:
Martina Klaus
Brussels, 15 €/m2 Luxembourg, 20 €/m2
2/3 floor area (in relation to Klaus) 1 floor area
900 € in rent X € in rent
The question is asking about the rent on Klaus’ apartment (the value we
need to find to choose an answer), so this is the unknown “X” here.
As you can note, we have used the unit (1) to express the proportion of the
floor area for Klaus compared to the one for Martina, taking into account
the question wording. You could also use any other numbers respecting that
proportion, like for example: 100 for Klaus, 66.67 for Martina; 90 for
Klaus, 60 for Martina, or other similar, but this one is the most simple and
direct.
Now, we can see the real problem here: we need to find the value of “X”,
but we are not able to apply a “rule of three” as in other exercises. If we had
just, for example, the costs of renting (15 and 20 €/m2 ) and the rental price
for Martina (900 €), we could simply use the common rule of three to
express the following (let us do it only as a review):
15 is related to 20
As 900 is related to X
So we could establish our equation, in the usual way, by cross

multiplication:
15 20
-----
900 ----- X
15 * X = 900 * 20
From where we could easily clear the X:
X = 900 * 20 / 15
But this method is not valid here, because we have an extra row of data to
consider, the floor area in this case. What to do then?
We must apply a “double rule of three ”, a mathematical tool quite simple

that we all studied at primary school, but being much less common than the
rule of three (and considering how far back our school years were left…), it
is not rare that we may have some difficulties to remember it. That is why
we have decided to include this particular exercise in our numerical
reasoning review.
To use this tool, first we place our numerical data in two columns, in the
same order that we had arranged them (we can reuse our first table in this
section, just omitting the text), and preferably leaving the X in the last row:
15 ----- 20
2/3 ----- 1
900 ----- X
No matter the order of the two rows without the X, or even if you placed
Klaus’ column on the left and Martina’s column on the right, your result
will be the same.
Now we have to do cross multiplication, not drawing an “X” as usual, but a

drawing of “scissors”, in the following way:
-----
15 20
----- 1
2/3
900 ----- X
So our expression will be:

15 * (2/3) * X = 20 * 1 * 900
Then, we are able to clear the X and solve this as usual, remembering that
figures multiplying must go to the opposite side by dividing, and vice versa.
Of course you should skip the number 1, which is neutral for both
operations (multiplication and division).
Step-by-step:
(2/3) * X = (20 * 900) / 15
(2/3) * X = 1200
X = 1200 * (3/2)
X = 1800
So the rent on Klaus’ apartment is 1800 euros.
Finally, before celebrating we solved the question, there is still a little pitfall
here, because we do not have this rental price among the answer options:
we must compare it with the rent on Martina’s apartment. Moreover, we
find a last option “None of the above statements is correct”, forcing us to
check, one by one, if any of them is right. Let us do it:

Is the rent on Klaus’ apartment (1800 euros) half the rent on Martina’s
apartment (900 euros)?
Obviously not – it is double the rent, in fact.

Again incorrect – it is 900 euros higher than the rent on Martina’s
apartment.

Here we should increase 50% the rent on Martina’s apartment to check if
this is right. So:
900 * (1 + 0.5) = 900 * 1.5 = 1350
Or if you prefer working with percentages: 900 + (900 * 50%) = 1350
We can see that 1800 is much higher than Martina’s rent increased 50%, so
it is incorrect too.

We may increase 100% the rent on Martina’s apartment to check if this is
right. Increasing 100% any value means to double it (that is, multiplying by
2), but still you can follow our usual method to ensure:
900 * (1 + 1) = 900 * 2 = 1800
Or working with percentages: 900 + (900 * 100%) = 1800
We can see that 1800 is exactly Martina’s rent increased 100%, so the right
answer is option d) .
My advice
The main issue in this exercise is to know how to use the “double rule of
three” that you have already seen here, in case something similar may
appear in your tests.
On the other hand, with the aim of saving time in finding the right answer,
if your alternatives were a bit more complicated, for example:
a) It is 15% higher than the rent on Martina’s apartment.

b) It is 45% higher than the rent on Martina’s apartment.
I would recommend calculating first the weight of Klaus’ rent on Martina’s

rent, simply by dividing them:
1800 / 900 = 2
This means, 1 + 1, or 100% + 100%, so 100% increase.
Or let us imagine that the two rents were 1200 and 900, then:
1200 / 900 = 1.33
This means, 1 + 0.33, or 100% + 33%, so 33% increase.
With this brief procedure, you can quickly compare the actual increase
against the answer options, without having to calculate the figures proposed
for every option .
Exercise 8
Which of these shares recorded a price increase of less than 10% between
Monday and Tuesday?
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Zebra
180 200 210 224
Communities
Ionis Technologies 200 220 220 210
Lifestyle
110 122 118 130
Group
Ocado Properties 210 230 220 200
Sun
185 205 210 190
Pharmaceuticals
a) Zebra Communities.
b) Ionis Technologies.
c) Lifestyle Group.
d) Ocado Properties.
e) Sun Pharmaceuticals.
Solution:
If we read carefully the question, we can see that we only need to check the
prices of Monday and Tuesday, to calculate the price increase of every
share. In this way, we can “black out” the columns for other days.

Monday Tuesday
Zebra
180 200
Communities
Ionis Technologies 200 220
Lifestyle
110 122
Group
Ocado Properties 210 230
Sun
185 205
Pharmaceuticals
Now we should find out the price increase for each share. In general, to
calculate any variation between two values (increase or decrease), we use
this formula:
Variation = (Final value - Initial value) / Initial value
In this exercise, for the first company (Zebra Communities), we have:
Variation = (Tuesday price - Monday price) / Monday pric e
Variation = (200 - 180) / 180 = 0.1111
We just need to multiply by 100 to get the percentage format:

0.1111 * 100 = 11.11%
So we can see that the price increase is not less than 10%, the condition
required in our question.
Next, we apply the same formula to the other shares of companies:
Variation = (Tuesday price - Monday price) / Monday price
Ionis T.: (220 – 200) / 200 = 0.1 ➔ 10%

Lifestyle G.: (122 – 110) / 110 = 0.1091 ➔ 10.91%
Ocado P.: (230 – 210) / 210 = 0.0952 ➔ 9.52%
Sun Ph.: (205 – 185) / 185 = 0.1081 ➔ 10.81%
Finally, we can see that the only share with a price increase of less than
10% is Ocado Properties, so the right answer is d).
There is a shortcut to solve this question without a calculator , a most

simple and “visual” method that we are going to explain, in case it may be
useful with similar questions in your test.
According to the question’s statement, we must find a share with an

increase in price of less than 10%. We know that it is pretty easy to obtain,
mentally, a 10% of any figure , because we just need to divide by 10 . For
example:
10% of 200
200 / 10 = 20 (we can do it directly, removing the last zero from 200)
10% of 195
195 / 10 = 19.5 (we can do it directly, moving the decimal point one place
to the left)
In our exercise, if we pay attention to all prices of Monday, we observe that

most figures end in zero (0) and one of them in five (5), so we can easily
get a 10% of these prices:
Zebra C.: 180 ➔ 18
Ionis T.: 200 ➔ 20
Lifestyle G.: 110 ➔ 11
Ocado P.: 210 ➔ 21
Sun Ph.: 185 ➔ 18.5

Then, to find a price increase of less than 10%, we only need to add up both
figures (initial value + 10% increase) and compare it with Tuesday price, to
check if it was higher or lower. We can do all this without a calculator, just
writing in your sheet .
Zebra C.: 180 + 18 = 198

Tuesday price was 200 (higher than 198), so its increase was more than
10%.
Ionis T.: 200 + 20 = 220

Tuesday price was 220 (exactly the same), so its increase was 10% (not
less).
Lifestyle G.: 110 + 11 = 121

Tuesday price was 122 (higher than 121), so its increase was more than
10%.
Ocado P.: 210 + 21 = 231

Tuesday price was 230 (lower than 231), so its increase was less than 10%.
Therefore, the right answer option is d).
We have reached our target, so we do not need to continue calculating and

can move on to solve other questions. However, if you had some time
available at the end of your exam, you could finish the remaining
calculations to make sure of your answers. In this case, we will check that
the last answer option is not right either:
Sun Ph.: 185 + 18.5 = 203.5

Tuesday price was 205 (higher than 203.5), so its increase was more than
10%.
As we said, you can perform almost all these additions mentally, maybe
using your calculator only for the last one.
My advice
Even though the fastest way to solve this exercise is by using the previous
shortcut (mentally calculating 10% increase), I want to show you here a
more direct method that you could use in general with other exercises to
obtain variations between two values quickly , or even here if you did not
see the shortcut.
Instead of the general formula that we already presented:
We could also use this one:
Variation = (Final value / Initial value) - 1
In this way, you do not need to enter figures three times in your calculator
(final value, initial value, initial value), but only twice (final value, initial
value), and mentally subtracting 1 to finish.
For example:
Initial value: 200
Final value: 220
How much is the variation?
First we do:
Final value / Initial value = 220 / 200 = 1.1
Then we subtract the unit: 1.1 - 1 = 0.1 ➔ 10% in percentag e
Note that, as you get more practice, you will not even need to subtract the
unit, because when you obtain the direct result, 1.1, this is exactly the way
that we used in our section of percentages review to increase values,
referred to the unit, like for example:
To increase 200 by 10% (so, 1 + 0.10)

200 * 1.10 = 220
So when you get the factor, 1.1, you can deduce that this means an increase
of 10%.
Now let us compare how much faster is getting the variations of our
exercise, in relation to the first formula that we explained:
Lifestyle G.: 122 / 110 = 1.1091 ➔ 10.91% increase
Ocado P.: 230 / 210 = 1.0952 ➔ 9.52% increase
Sun Ph.: 205 / 185 = 1.1081 ➔ 10.81% increase
Please take your time to understand this method, and practise with your
own values too.
You could maybe think that it is a bit too advanced for your level, especially
if you still feel unconfident when working with percentages. In that case,
you could keep using the classical formula in your exam, no problem,
because you will probably have time enough to do the calculations required
.
My point here is that knowledge does not take up any space. So the more
resources you have to solve problems, the better for your performance. In
case you have only a few seconds to answer the last question of your test,
and need to obtain quickly the increase between two figures, for example,
from 850 euros to 1200 euros, it will be much faster doing one operation
(division) with your calculator:
1200 / 850 = 1.4118 ➔ 41.18% increase
Instead of doing two operations (subtraction and division):

(1200 – 850) / 850 = 0.4118 ➔ 41.18%
Note that both methods give you the same information, if you look carefully
at their decimal figures.
That is why I told you in our book’s introduction that numbers can ‘speak’
to you somehow, giving more information that you could expect from them
at first sight.
Let me present how to obtain percentage decreases with this system, in a

very similar way.
For example:
Initial value: 200
Final value: 175
We apply exactly the same formula :
Variation = (175 / 200) - 1 = -0.125
The negative figure means that there has been a decrease here, so,
multiplying by 100 as usual to get the percentage format, we get a -12.5%
decrease.
You could probably say that in this case we are not saving really much time,
compared to the traditional method, which also requires a division and a
subtraction:
Variation = (175 - 200) / 200 = -0.125
The difference is that sometimes you can subtract the unit (1) mentally,
without a calculator, and skip that step, especially in many EPSO questions
about small decreases, like for example:
Initial value: 2000 employees

Final value: 1980 employees
We just do:
Final value / Initial value = 1980 / 2000 = 0.99
Then we can subtract the unit:

0.99 - 1 = -0.01 ➔ -1% decreas e
And, as you practice more often this system, you will not need to subtract
the unit to be able to see that the distance from 0.99 to 1 is just 0.01, right?
So the decrease that we are looking for is -0.01 (unit format), or -1%
(percentage format), with a negative sign, because it is a decrease.
The numerical reasoning of this 0.99 is simple and may be useful for you:
we can see that the final value represents a 99% over the initial value, so
necessarily the decrease has been the “lost” part from this 99% to the
original 100%, that is, -1%.
We insist: the key here is paying attention to the decimal figures , which
show you valuable information about what happened with the numbers.
Next, we offer you some additional examples, and encourage you to

practise with your own figures too.
Calculate the variation between the following pairs of values:
Initial value: 400

Final value: 360
Initial value: 15
Final value: 14
Initial value: 100000

Final value: 95000
Initial value: 300

Final value: 291
Solutions:
Our method is:

Initial value: 400

Final value: 360
Variation = (360 / 400) - 1 = 0.9 - 1 = -0.1 ➔ -10% decrease
Or directly, with your first division 360 / 400 = 0.9, you can see that the
distance to the unit is 0.1 (10%) with negative sign for being a decrease.
Initial value: 15
Final value: 14
Variation = (14 / 15) - 1 = 0.933 - 1 = -0.066 ➔ -6.6% decrease
Harder to see it directly by doing 14 / 15 = 0.933, so you can subtract 1 with

your calculator, it is fine here.
Initial value: 100000

Final value: 95000
Variation = (95000/ 100000) - 1 = 0.95 - 1 = -0.05 ➔ -5% decrease
Here it is easy to observe that 0.95 already shows you the decrease of 5%,
so not necessary to subtract the unit, if you remember (and practice again
with) our examples in chapter 3.
Initial value: 300
Final value: 291
Variation = (291 / 300) - 1 = 0.97 - 1 = -0.03 ➔ -3% decrease
Again not difficult to note that 0.97 already reveals a decrease of 3%. Not
necessary to subtract 1.
In any of these cases, you can follow the whole process to feel more
confident about your results. We just try to show you faster ways to do
calculations and becoming more comfortable when working with numbers.
Exercise 9
In France, the percentage of family units with children decreased by 20%

between 2000 and 2010. In 2010, there was 360 000 family units with no
children. What was the percentage of family units with no children in 2010?
a) 36%.
b) 60%.
c) 64%.
d) 80%.
e) Impossible to tell.
Solution:
By reading the question and chart data, we observe that they provide us
with full information about the household composition in France in 2000
and partial information about its change in 2010. We must use that figures
to calculate the percentage of family units with no children in 2010.
Let us go step-by-step to solve this question, because its calculations are

quite simple, but it contains a big pitfall (very common in EPSO questions)
that we will explain too.
First sentence of the question’s statement says: In France, the percentage of

family units with children decreased by 20% between 2000 and 2010 .
We can easily verify that the only country appearing in the question and
chart is France, so no problem here about possible confusion with data from
other countries.
We should obtain the percentage of family units with children in 2000, to

reduce it by 20% for 2010, according to this sentence.
So, looking at the chart data, we are able to calculate this percentage, and
we have two ways to do it:
- adding up the percentages of family units with 1, 2, 3, 4 or more
children: 20% + 30% + 20% + 10% = 80%
- subtracting the percentage of family units with no children (20%)
from the total (100%), which is faster: 100% - 20% = 80%
Even though the calculations are simple in this case and you could use both
forms quite fast, please note that numerical reasoning can be very helpful
here, because you could have, for example, eight or ten categories to add up
(instead of four) and longer figures with decimals, so taking a few seconds
to realise that you only need to exclude one category (family unit with no
children) from the total may be really advantageous.
Therefore, the percentage of family units with children in 2000 was 80%.
Our first sentence said that this percentage decreased by 20% between 2000
and 2010. To decrease a value, we use our method referred to the unit:
80% * (1 - 0.2) = 80% * 0.8 = 64%
Here we recommend reviewing our initial practices with percentages, if you

need it, to remember that, to decrease a number by 20%, we may directly
use the factor 0.8 to get it in just one multiplication.
You could also use the traditional two-step method, by calculating first the
decrease (80% * 0.2 = 16%), and then subtracting it from the initial value:
80% - 16% = 64%
On the other hand, you could even use the unit format, instead of
percentage format, with all the figures here, by doing:
0.8 * (1 - 0.2) = 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64
However, this conversion is not worth it in this exercise, because you can
see that our answer options are in percentage format, so we would have to
change it back again .
Now we know that the percentage of family units with children in 2010 was
64%.
Let us analyse the following sentence of our question:

In 2010, there was 360 000 family units with no children .
This information could be useful if we needed to convert our percentages to

calculate the actual number of family units for any category, or the total
number of family units in France. But in this exercise, we just need to
obtain a result in percentage (checking our answer options), and we already
have our calculations in percentage format, so this new data is completely
useless for us and it is the big pitfall that we mentioned above: if you try to
include it in your calculations somehow, you will probably be lost soon and
get a wrong result.
Finally, we can answer the question of this exercise:

What was the percentage of family units with no children in 2010?
Knowing that the percentage of family units with children in 2010 was
64%, we can deduce that the rest of family units were family units with no
children, so:
100% - 64% = 36%
This implies that the right answer option here is a).
My advice
This exercise is a good example of how numerical reasoning is more

important than calculations in most EPSO questions. We could have even
solved it without using a calculator, because all the operations are very
basic.
The main trick here is to see that we can obtain the percentage of opposite
categories belonging to an entire group just by subtracting:
100% - percentage of the opposite category
As we did twice in this exercise:

100% - 20% = 80%
(To get the percentage of family units with children in 2000, compared to
the category “not having children”)
100% - 64% = 36%

(To get the percentage of family units with no children in 2010, compared
to the category “having children”)
As I have found in my experience with EPSO tests, this kind of reasoning is

more often required when they provide you with a chart like the one in this
example, a circular graphic, in which you should be able to see that the
addition of all categories has to be 100%.
So my advice is paying special attention to these circular graphics , from

which you may obtain essential information about opposite categories
belonging to the same group.
Exercise 10
In a selective course organised by the EU police agency, EUROPOL, there

are two classes: a class for non-commissioned officers (NCO), in which
there are three women for every five men, and a class for officers, in which
there are as many women as men. Having into account the information
collected in the chart, what can be said about the average size of the
candidates?

Solution:
In this exercise, they ask us about calculating average sizes of two groups,
which is, in principle, quite easy. For every group (officers and NCO here),
we only need to multiply the number of candidates (men and women) by
their respective size, and then divide it between the total number of
candidates, as we would do to calculate any other type of average. The
formula would be, in a simplified way:
(Number of men * their size) + (Number of women * their size)

Number of men + Number of women
The issue here is that we do not know the number of men and women of
each group, only their average sizes. However, we know the proportion
between women and men in every group, and this is enough to obtain the
average sizes and compare them, as we are going to explain.
First, considering that in class for officers there are as many women as men,
that is, the same number of both, we could get the joint average size [3] of
this class by using the following expression.
Let us suppose that the number of men (and women too) is “N”. The
average size of this class would be, according to the formula above:
(N * 180) + (N * 170)
N+N
Adding up in both, numerator and denominator :

(180 + 170 ) * N
(1 + 1) * N
350 * N
2*N
Then we can remove “N”, which is in the numerator and the denominator at
the same time, and obtain that the joint average size of the officers’ class is:
350 / 2 = 175 cm
Anyway, there is a faster procedure that we should employ here, instead of
the previous formula with the unknown “N”, just using our numerical
reasoning : if there are as many men as women in this class, and we know
their respective average sizes (180 and 170 cm), then the average for the
whole group (no matter if there are 100 women and 100 men, or just 1
woman and 1 man) has to be necessarily the direct average between both
figures:
(180 + 170) / 2 = 175 cm
Moreover, you can use the valuable help of the chart here, because we could
visually deduce that the average between the two bars in class for officers,
men (180 cm) and women (170 cm), has to be in the middle point between
them, which is 175 cm.
Next we go to analyse the class for NCO. Initially, we could use the general
formula, now supposing that the number of men is “M” and the number of
women is “W” (because they are different in this class) .
Let us explain this method to review how to solve equations with two
unknowns .
1) We establish our initial expression with the general formula:
(Number of men * their size) + (Number of women * their size)

Number of men + Number of women
Replacing with the values of the graphic in NCO class (average size of
men, 178 cm; average size of women, 170 cm), and the unknown figures M
and W:
(M * 178) + (W * 170)
M+W
2) We write a second expression to relate our unknown figures, indicating

how to calculate one of them starting from the other one. In this exercise,
we know that, in NCO class, there are three women for every five men, so
the number of women divided by 3 must be equal to the number of men
divided by 5:
W/3=M/5
From which:
W = (3/5) * M
In case you had any doubt about how to build this second expression, that is
to say, if you should multiply “M” by 3/5 or 5/3, think about how the
numbers of men and women have to be: “three women for every five men”
means that there are fewer women than men, obviously. So if you decided
to use, with the nerves and hurries at the exam, the wrong expression:
W/5=M/3
W = (5/3) * M
Then you would have that, after multiplying the number of men (M) by
more than the unit (5/3 is more than 1), the number of women (W) would
be larger than the number of men, so you would be able to correct your
expression. It is convenient here to remember what we said about the effect
of multiplying by more than 1 (that is, increasing), or by less than 1 (that is,
decreasing).
So we need to multiply the number of men (M) by 3/5 (less than 1), to
obtain a smaller number of women (W), as we had said: W = (3/5) * M
3) We substitute the value of one of the unknowns in the initial expression,

using our second equation, to leave it with only one unknown:
First expression:
(M * 178) + (W * 170)
M+W
Second expression:
W = (3/5) * M
Substituting W in the first expression:

(M * 178) + [(3/5) * M * 170]
M + (3/5) * M
Reducing by addition and multiplication:

(M * 178) + (M * 102)
M + (3/5) * M
(178 + 102) * M
(1 + 3/5) * M
(178 + 102) * M
(1 + 3/5) * M
280 * M
(8/5) * M
Then we can remove “M”, which is in the numerator and the denominator,
and obtain that the joint average size of the NCO class is:
280 * 5/8 = 175 cm
However, as we could imagine knowing most EPSO questions, there is a

much faster and simpler way to calculate this, using again our numerical
reasoning.
We can deduce that, in this class, having five men for every three women,
the relative weight of the average size of the men will be higher than the
one of the women. How much higher?
Well, we have the proportion: the number of men weighs five times while
the number of women weighs three times. Therefore, the average size of the
men will weigh five times while the one of the women will weighs three
times, right? To express this, we only need to multiply both average sizes
by their relative weights, and divide it by the total “overweight” applied
(five times + three times), in the following way:
(178 * 5 + 170 * 3) / (5 + 3 )
Then, multiplying and solving:
(890 + 510) / 8 = 175 cm
You can note that this calculation is exactly like supposing that our class is
composed only by 5 men and 3 women , the simplest case according to the
question’s statement, so we have multiplied by the number of candidates of
each size (five and three) and divided by the total number of the group
(eight).
It may be illustrative too, if you look again at our result for the other class
(officers), observing that there our calculation of a direct average was like
supposing that the class was composed only by 1 men and 1 women in fact,
following its respective proportion (“as many women as men”), so when we
did:
(180 + 170) / 2 = 175 cm
We were actually using the relative weight of that supposition (1 and 1):
(180 * 1 + 170 * 1) / (1 + 1) = 175 cm
In any case, no matter the process chosen for the calculations, we have
proved that both classes, NCO and officers, have the same average size, 175
cm, so option c) is right.
My advice
As we have explained, the easiest way to solve this type of exercises about
averages is to suppose that you have a small group, meeting the rule of the
question (1 man, 1 woman; 5 men, 3 women), and calculate the joint
averages for them :
Officers: (180 * 1 + 170 * 1) / (1 + 1) = 175 cm
NCO: (178 * 5 + 170 * 3) / (5 + 3) = 175 cm
With the help of your calculator, you will only need one minute, or even
less, to do this and solve the question.
Anyway, I would like to show you a couple of extra shortcuts in this

exercise, in case they may be useful for you with similar questions at your
exam.
1) Let us read again carefully the answer options that we have available
here, about the average size of the candidates:
We should realise that, when we compare both average sizes, or any other
two values in general, no matter what they are about, there are only three
possibilities: one of them is smaller, or higher, or identical than the other
one . So, necessarily, one of the first three options here, a), b), or c), has to
be the right one.
This implies that we should directly skip options d) and e) –we do not even
need to read them!– because if any of them said something true, then there
would be two right answers, this one and one of the first three, and this is
impossible according to the rules of our test: only one answer option is right
.
Sometimes you can find this type of questions, in which we can exclude
one or more options by just using our logical or even verbal reasoning skills
that are also evaluated in other EPSO tests, as we know, and may help you
here too in certain cases.
2) I still have another shortcut, maybe a little surprising, to show you how
amazing the support of graphics can be in these exercises, allowing us to
solve this particular question without handling our calculator or even doing
a single operation.
In a similar way that I recommended using the chart of class for officers to
visually deduce that the joint average between the two bars, men (180 cm)
and women (170 cm), has to be in the middle point between them (175 cm),
without doing any calculation, because both of them have identical relative
weight, we could use the chart of class for NCO with the same purpose,
now taking into account the different relative weight of men and women in
that class.
First, let us focus again on the class for officers. Its joint average is located
half way (175 cm) between the two bars, as we have just said. How would it
“move” between them if their relative weights changed?
Let us imagine that this class for officers had four men for every woman,
instead of the 1:1 proportion of our exercise.
In that case, we would use our simplified method to calculate, like

supposing that our class is composed only by 4 men and 1 woman, that the
joint average size would be :
Officers: (180 * 4 + 170 * 1) / (4 + 1) = 178 cm
Now the magic touch: can we obtain this average even without doing this
operation? Yes, we can!
Let us look again carefully at the graphic and compare it with this
calculated average, 178 cm.
We can see that this average, 178 cm, would be situated now much closer to
the men’s bar, because its relative weight is higher. How much closer?
Considering that the graphic is already divided in “steps” of 2 cm each (as

we can observe in the scale on the left: 170, 172, 174…), the new position
of the average leaves 4 steps below and 1 step above, that is to say, exactly
the same proportion of our class : 4 men, 1 woman, going always closer to
the overrepresented side (men in this case).
So we could say that the joint average between two sides is an intermediate
number that will be exactly in the middle, if both sides have the same
relative weight, or will get closer to the larger side, in the same proportion
of its overrepresentation, if they have different relative weight.
To visualise this better in our graphic, we can think that it is like a tug-of-
war or rope war game – the popular game of two teams against each other
pulling on opposite ends of a rope, trying to bring the rope to their side.
In this way, when both teams are composed by the same number of
members, e.g., 10 men and 10 women, 3 men and 3 women, or 1 man and 1
woman, their forces will be balanced (proportion 1:1), so the rope will
remain in its place in the middle.
On the contrary, when one team has more members than the other one, e.g.,
20 men and 10 women (proportion 2:1), 3 men and 12 women (proportion
1:4), or 2 men and 5 women (proportion 2:5), the larger team will “pull
stronger” the rope, bringing it to its side in the same proportion of its
relative weight .
Therefore, to picture where the average will be placed in a graphic, we

should divide into steps the distance between the two bars of these groups,
using the same number of steps as the total of our proportion, for example:
- proportion 2:1 ➔ 2 + 1 = 3 steps
Then, we will place the average in the position corresponding to the relative
weight of each side (team). Following these last examples and using again
our graphic for illustrative and didactic purposes:
- proportion 2:1 (in favour of men) ➔ 3 steps. The rope will “move”
two steps to men’s side, one step to women’s side. So the joint
average will be approximately in the position indicated:
- proportion 1:4 (in favour of women) ➔ 5 steps. The rope will
“move” four steps to women’s side, one step to men’s side. So the
joint average will be now here (it is easy to see the exact value, 172):
(Note that this is exactly the opposite case to the proportion 4:1 in
favour of men that we analysed above, with a joint average of 178 cm)
- proportion 2:5 (in favour of women) ➔ 7 steps. The rope will

“move” five steps to women’s side, two steps to men’s side. So the
joint average will be approximately:
After this little training, we are in a position to try to find out the joint
average size of class for NCO, as our exercise required, by analysing again
its graphic and using our new ‘visual strategy’.
According to the question, in this class we have a proportion 3:5 (in favour
of men). This means: 3 + 5 = 8 steps. So now the rope will “move” five
steps to men’s side, three steps to women’s side, closer to the larger team, as
usual.
Fortunately (and you can bet that it is not a coincidence in this exercise), it
is pretty easy to divide the distance between the two bars here, men (178
cm) and women (170 cm), having all the steps of 2 cm each clearly drawn
in our graphic, as we already saw, and exactly four steps between these bars
of the NCO class.
As a consequence, it is not difficult to visually divide these four steps drawn

into eight imaginary steps of 1 cm each (a half of the ones drawn), in the
way that we need to do here.
Then, we should “pull the rope” (the average) to place it five steps to men’s
side, three steps to women’s side, in a similar manner that we have done
with the previous examples, and getting, just visually, that the result has to
be 175 cm, as we have pictured here:
Note:
If you need to count our imaginary steps one to one to ensure, you will do:
2 steps from 170 to 172

1 step from 174 to 175
Total: 5 steps going up towards the men’s bar.
And this has to match the women’s side:

1 step from 176 to 175
Total: 3 steps going down towards the women’s bar.
So, as we said, we could solve this question with the only and valuable help
of the graphics, without doing any calculation.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this last chapter, we are going to summarise our method to solve

numerical reasoning questions, and briefly recall some of the tips that we
have presented throughout this book.
As we have seen in our exercises, the most efficient strategy to deal with
this type of tests is the following:
1) Read carefully the questions and answer options.
2) Identify the relevant data according to the question, and mentally “black
out” the unnecessary data.
3) Check the level of accuracy or estimation using the answer options.
4) Decide the method (rule of three, equation, visual deduction, intuitive

approach…)
5) Perform the calculations and match the result against the options.
We consider that, if you practise enough to master the main techniques

explained in this book (percentages calculation, increases and decreases,
operating with fractions, rules of three, simple equations, calculating
averages, and interpreting graphics), your performance in the exam will be
very high, not only to get the pass mark that you need, but also to achieve a
much better score .
We do not want to conclude without pointing out again our core

recommendations , listing them all together to ease your reviews:
General tips:
a) Do not overuse the calculator.
b) Pay attention to the unit or scale of the relevant magnitudes.
c) Be aware of time management.
d) Answer all the questions.
Specific advice:
Use the reference to the unit as a shortcut, instead of the
traditional 100%, to increase and decrease values quickly.
Practise by multiplying/dividing by more/less than the unit, to
see for yourself the effect on the figures (let the numbers “speak”
to you).
Do not confuse percentages with percentage points.
Obtain variations between two values faster by dividing:
Final value / Initial value
Avoid the pitfall of useless data just aimed to mislead you.

Do not be afraid of devoting sufficient time to think about how
to reduce your calculations.
Check if you have a “none of the above” option, or if some
options exclude others.
Look carefully at circular graphics, from which you may obtain
additional information about other categories.
Analyse relative weights of categories to deduce their effect on
averages and other calculations, especially in graphics.
APPRECIATION TO THE READER
I would like to thank you for the confidence in acquiring this book, and
convey again my best wishes for all selective procedures that you may try
in the future.
It is important to remember that a candidate for open competitions is similar

to a long-distance runner: you have to maintain the effort and concentration
to train and practise for several months, or even years, while waiting for the
publication of the call you are interested in, the date of your tests or the
invitation for your interview. It is not convenient to give up if you do not
pass on the first try, since the know-how gained is of great help in the next
attempt or in other similar competitions, as my own experience shows.
I recommend the acquisition of the books that I have published in this same
collection, intended to improve verbal and abstract reasoning skills, if you
feel that you can progress in those fields, as well as my books for several
CAST profiles and for different tests and interviews in EPSO competitions.
I would ask you to please make all the comments and suggestions that you
wish through the Amazon website, and I would appreciate that you
evaluated my work there too, which will help me to continue publishing
future editions and updates of these manuals, as well as new guides to other
competitions and calls.
Finally, please do not hesitate to contact me on social networks (I use my

full name on Facebook and LinkedIn), if you ever need additional advice.
[1]
Note: all data used in exercises in this book are fictitious. They are similar to the ones that you
can find at the actual exam, as well as in other websites like EU training ( https://eutraining.eu/ )
and ORSEU ( www.orseu-concours.com ) ones, to help you practice with them too as much as you
can, which I strongly recommend for the reasoning tests.
[2]
Note that some exercises of numerical reasoning may include a certain degree of verbal reasoning
too, like this one, in which we should apply our general knowledge about basic demography, at a
level of primary school.
[3]
The joint average size is the average size of the whole group (men and women together).

José María Franco Reverte - How To Succeed in EPSO Numerical Reasoning Tests (2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

José María Franco Reverte - How To Succeed in EPSO Numerical Reasoning Tests (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I wish my readers the best of luck.

He is an economist and official at the public administration in Spain, having

He has been a successful candidate in the verbal, numerical and abstract

He has also worked as a national expert at the European Commission,

In general, with regard to numerical reasoning tests in open competitions

Mental calculation : the ability to calculate quickly using basic

Data interpretation : the skill to read and analyse properly the

Numerical reasoning (itself): the talent in combining the two

3.2. EPSO numerical tests

The numerical reasoning tests of the competitions organised by EPSO

The numerical reasoning test is composed of 10 questions and lasts 20

One common mistake of many candidates at the numerical reasoning tests

On the contrary, we can affirm that an overuse of the calculator is indeed

Another issue that we should consider carefully is the unit, scale,

The third important matter to be aware of is time management . As we

At last, it is convenient to remember that there is no penalty for wrong

A high number of questions from the EPSO tests require handling

Therefore, it is advisable to review our knowledge in this field, as we will

First, the traditional way to apply a percentage (for example, 25%) to a

After that, if it is a percentage of increase, we will add: 80 + 20 = 100, so

Knowing this, we should point out that there is a shortcut to do these

In the same way, to decrease a number by 25%, we subtract:

I recommend starting with ‘easy’ percentages and round numbers, both

To increase and decrease 200 by 25%

To increase and decrease 500 by 40%

To increase and decrease 300 by 30%

For example, to increase by 1%, we can multiply by 1.01 (i.e., 1 + 0.01);

Here we present some examples:

Decreasing 200 by 15%

Increasing 900 by 0.4%

Decreasing 900 by 3.5%

Increasing 100 by 0.7%

Increasing 400 by 1.5%

Decreasing 600 by 0.3%

Decreasing 800 by 2.5%

(Solutions on the next page)

Decreasing 500 by 12%

Increasing 100 by 0.7%

Increasing 400 by 1.5%

Decreasing 600 by 0.3%

Decreasing 800 by 2.5%

Now, we have to calculate a number (the unknown “X”) which multiplied

So we can express this:

Let us see another example:

Final value: 390

Again, we can set our expression:

Final value: 204

The initial value is:

Final value: 700

Final value: 903.6

Initial value = 903.6/ 1.004 = 90 0

Again we propose some exercises, based on the previous ones above, to

Final value: 505

Final value: 515

Final value: 100.7

Final value: 406

Final value: 505

Initial value: 500

Final value: 515

Initial value: 500

Final value: 100.7

Initial value: 100