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.

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:

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 07:11

I am sorry, but the official answer does not make any sense for Statement 1. It is simply mathematically wrong.

Mathematically spoken the statement says: |Betty-50.000|<|Wilma-50.000| and not Betty-50.000 < Wilma-50.000 Let me make a numerical example. Betty earns 49.999 an Wilma earns 70.000. Obviously Betty's salary is closer than 50.000 though Wilma earns more. And the over way around: Let Betty earn 50.001 and Wilma 40.000, now still Betty's wage is closer to 50.000 though she now earns more than Wilma.

Stating that 1) is sufficient is simply wrong and I'm actually quite astonished people get away with such an answer so easily.

p.s.: The same argumentation holds for 2), so the correct answer must be C, as you can deduct from both statements that both wages must lie above 50.000; something you can't predict earlier.

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 07:24

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

ethnix wrote:

I am sorry, but the official answer does not make any sense for Statement 1. It is simply mathematically wrong.

Mathematically spoken the statement says: |Betty-50.000|<|Wilma-50.000| and not Betty-50.000 < Wilma-50.000 Let me make a numerical example. Betty earns 49.999 an Wilma earns 70.000. Obviously Betty's salary is closer than 50.000 though Wilma earns more. And the over way around: Let Betty earn 50.001 and Wilma 40.000, now still Betty's wage is closer to 50.000 though she now earns more than Wilma.

Stating that 1) is sufficient is simply wrong and I'm actually quite astonished people get away with such an answer so easily.

p.s.: The same argumentation holds for 2), so the correct answer must be C, as you can deduct from both statements that both wages must lie above 50.000; something you can't predict earlier.

Welcome to GMAT Club.

Your examples are not correct because we are told that "both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50000".

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 07:27

Bunuel wrote:

ethnix wrote:

I am sorry, but the official answer does not make any sense for Statement 1. It is simply mathematically wrong.

Mathematically spoken the statement says: |Betty-50.000|<|Wilma-50.000| and not Betty-50.000 < Wilma-50.000 Let me make a numerical example. Betty earns 49.999 an Wilma earns 70.000. Obviously Betty's salary is closer than 50.000 though Wilma earns more. And the over way around: Let Betty earn 50.001 and Wilma 40.000, now still Betty's wage is closer to 50.000 though she now earns more than Wilma.

Stating that 1) is sufficient is simply wrong and I'm actually quite astonished people get away with such an answer so easily.

p.s.: The same argumentation holds for 2), so the correct answer must be C, as you can deduct from both statements that both wages must lie above 50.000; something you can't predict earlier.

Welcome to GMAT Club.

Your examples are not correct because we are told that "both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50000".

Hope it's clear.

OMG, thanks. I suppose reading the question would avoid to most of my wrong answers :D

gmatclubot

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than
[#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 07:27