Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jun 2011, 22:18

10

This post received KUDOS

10

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (02:32) correct
74% (01:18) wrong based on 1066 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units.

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units.

stmnt 1- if the other coordinate is on y-axis we have coordinate as (0,10) and (6,10). Suff

but if the distance of 10 is b/w origin and diagonally opposite vertices then we get different coordinates. hence statement 1 becomes insufficient

stmnt2 - Same reasoning as above makes statement 2 as insufficient.

taking together we can conclude that distance of 10 is b/w origin and diagonally opposite vertices and distance of 8 lies on y axis. So we can find the values of the other vertices. hence together they are sufficient.

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units.

What if one of the statements were: (1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 6 units.
_________________

What if one of the statements were: (1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 6 units.

Well in that case St 1 gives us no new information, since we know its a rectangle, we already know one side is of 6 units, the other side is either bigger or smaller than 6. So St 1 is insuff. We already know St 2 is insuff. But this time both together are also insuff since we don't know what 8 represents (the diagonal or one of the perpendicular sides).

What if one of the statements were: (1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 6 units.

Well in that case St 1 gives us no new information, since we know its a rectangle, we already know one side is of 6 units, the other side is either bigger or smaller than 6. So St 1 is insuff. We already know St 2 is insuff. But this time both together are also insuff since we don't know what 8 represents (the diagonal or one of the perpendicular sides).

Is my analysis valid?

Actually, st1 is sufficient in this case.

A square is a specialized rectangle. And it's only 6 units away from origin, thus it is directly above it.
_________________

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units.

What if one of the statements were: (1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 6 units.

You could interpret that statement in two different ways, so I think the question becomes ambiguous. That statement is only sufficient if by 'one of the other vertices' you mean 'one of the vertices not mentioned in the question'. In that case, we must have a square, which is of course a type of rectangle. But, if by 'one of the other vertices' you mean 'one of the other vertices of the rectangle' (which is how I'd interpret it), then it's not sufficient; we already know that (0,0) and (0,6) are six apart.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units.

What if one of the statements were: (1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 6 units.

You could interpret that statement in two different ways, so I think the question becomes ambiguous. That statement is only sufficient if by 'one of the other vertices' you mean 'one of the vertices not mentioned in the question'. In that case, we must have a square, which is of course a type of rectangle. But, if by 'one of the other vertices' you mean 'one of the other vertices of the rectangle' (which is how I'd interpret it), then it's not sufficient; we already know that (0,0) and (0,6) are six apart.

Good that pointed out the ambiguity.

I was just trying to create a situation where knowing one of the vertices of the rectangle that doesn't lie on the x-axis can still suffice to answer the question.

So, I rephrase my statement. (1) The distance between the origin and one of the rectangle's other vertices that don't lie on the x-axis is 6 units.
_________________

[ I was just trying to create a situation where knowing one of the vertices of the rectangle that doesn't lie on the x-axis can still suffice to answer the question.

I think it's a more interesting question that way, and a more GMAT-like one as well - if one of the statements turns out to be sufficient alone. If, in your rephrased statement, you make the distance any number less than 6, then there would be no ambiguity and the statement would be sufficient alone, since then the distance cannot possibly be the length of the diagonal.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Hhmm I think C, statement 1 and 2 could both refer to either the diagonal distance between the vertices or just the sides.. Combined, 10 is bigger so it must be the diagonal leaving 8 for the sides, from there you can figure out the coordinates..

Re: A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Jun 2012, 20:58

Am I right in stating that when the question means that the distance between one of the vertices and origin, it may be construed as that distance between the origin and diagonal/ length of the side...??

Because, then C makes sense and diagonally opposite would be 10, 6 and the other would be 8,0.

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

Notice that we are told that the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers. That basically means that the rectangle is plotted entirely in the first quadrant: one vertex at the origin (0, 0), another on Y-axis (0, 6), third one somewhere in the first quadrant (x, 6) and the fourth vertex on the X-axis (x, 0):

Attachment:

Rectangle.png [ 5.05 KiB | Viewed 9269 times ]

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units. 10 units is either the length of the other side or the length of the diagonal. The vertices could be: (0, 0), (0, 6), (10, 6) and (10, 0) OR (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0), in this case the distance of 10 units is the distance between (0, 0) and (6, 8). Not sufficient.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units. Now, 8 units can not be the length of the diagonal since in this case the coordinates of the other two vertices won't be integers: if the diagonal=8, then the length of the other side of the rectangle is \(\sqrt{8^2-6^2}=2\sqrt{7}\), so the coordinates of the other two vertices are: \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 6)\) and \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 0)\). So, 8 units must be the length of the side, therefore the vertices are (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0). Sufficient.

Re: A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Aug 2013, 14:05

Bunuel wrote:

Answer to this question is B, not C.

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

Notice that we are told that the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers. That basically means that the rectangle is plotted entirely in the first quadrant: one vertex at the origin (0, 0), another on Y-axis (0, 6), third one somewhere in the first quadrant (x, 6) and the fourth vertex on the X-axis (x, 0).

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units. 10 units is either the length of the other side or the length of the diagonal. The vertices could be: (0, 0), (0, 6), (10, 6) and (10, 0) OR (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0), in this case the distance of 10 units is the distance between (0, 0) and (6, 8). Not sufficient.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units. Now, 8 units can not be the length of the diagonal since in this case the coordinates of the other two vertices won't be integers: if the diagonal=8, then the length of the other side of the rectangle is \(\sqrt{8^2-6^2}=2\sqrt{7}\), so the coordinates of the other two vertices are: \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 6)\) and \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 0)\). So, 8 units must be the length of the side, therefore the vertices are (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0). Sufficient.

Answer: B.

Hope it's clear.

What if you rotate the rectangle by few degrees upwards in the first quadrant but let the length of the two sides remain 6 and 8 respectively? The coordinates will remain positive but will be different from what you have listed above.

A rectangle is plotted on the standard coordinate plane, with vertices at the origin and (0,6). If the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers, what are the coordinates of the other two vertices?

Notice that we are told that the coordinates of all vertices of the rectangle are non-negative integers. That basically means that the rectangle is plotted entirely in the first quadrant: one vertex at the origin (0, 0), another on Y-axis (0, 6), third one somewhere in the first quadrant (x, 6) and the fourth vertex on the X-axis (x, 0).

(1) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 10 units. 10 units is either the length of the other side or the length of the diagonal. The vertices could be: (0, 0), (0, 6), (10, 6) and (10, 0) OR (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0), in this case the distance of 10 units is the distance between (0, 0) and (6, 8). Not sufficient.

(2) The distance between the origin and one of the other vertices is 8 units. Now, 8 units can not be the length of the diagonal since in this case the coordinates of the other two vertices won't be integers: if the diagonal=8, then the length of the other side of the rectangle is \(\sqrt{8^2-6^2}=2\sqrt{7}\), so the coordinates of the other two vertices are: \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 6)\) and \((2\sqrt{7}, \ 0)\). So, 8 units must be the length of the side, therefore the vertices are (0, 0), (0, 6), (8, 6) and (8, 0). Sufficient.

Answer: B.

Hope it's clear.

What if you rotate the rectangle by few degrees upwards in the first quadrant but let the length of the two sides remain 6 and 8 respectively? The coordinates will remain positive but will be different from what you have listed above.

Am I right?

Will the figure still be a rectangle then?
_________________

Happy New Year everyone! Before I get started on this post, and well, restarted on this blog in general, I wanted to mention something. For the past several months...

It’s quickly approaching two years since I last wrote anything on this blog. A lot has happened since then. When I last posted, I had just gotten back from...

Happy 2017! Here is another update, 7 months later. With this pace I might add only one more post before the end of the GSB! However, I promised that...

The words of John O’Donohue ring in my head every time I reflect on the transformative, euphoric, life-changing, demanding, emotional, and great year that 2016 was! The fourth to...