|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Status: Preparing for the 4th time -:(
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 558
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: International Business, Strategy
GMAT Date: 06-22-2012
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
63
[0], given: 212
|
Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $5000 [#permalink]
 09 Jun 2012, 14:42
Question Stats:
76% (01:40) correct
23% (00:43) wrong based on 3 sessions
Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50000. Is Wilma's annual salary greater than Betty's? (1) Betty's annual salary is closer to $50,000 than is Wilma's. (2) Betty's annual salary is closer to $35,000 than it is to Wilma's annual salary.
_________________
Best Regards,
E.
MGMAT 1 --> 530
MGMAT 2--> 640
MGMAT 3 ---> 610 
Last edited by Bunuel on 28 Jan 2013, 08:19, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the OA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 11592
Followers: 1799
Kudos [?]:
9583
[2] , given: 826
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
09 Jun 2012, 14:52
2
This post received
KUDOS
Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50000. Is Wilma's annual salary greater than Betty's? Notice that we are told that both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50,000. (1) Betty's annual salary is closer to $50,000 than is Wilma's. ----$50,000---(Betty)----(Wilma)---- So, as you can see Wilma's annual salary is greater than Betty's. Sufficient. (2) Betty's annual salary is closer to $35,000 than it is to Wilma's annual salary. $35,000----$50,000---(Betty)----(Wilma)---- Again Wilma's annual salary is greater than Betty's. Sufficient. Answer: D. Hope it's clear.
_________________
PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 11 Rules for Posting!!!
RESOURCES: [GMAT MATH BOOK]; 1. Triangles; 2. Polygons; 3. Coordinate Geometry; 4. Factorials; 5. Circles; 6. Number Theory
COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. NEW!!!
DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS ; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set. NEW!!!
What are GMAT Club Tests?
25 extra-hard Quant Tests
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2012
Posts: 88
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GMAT 3: Q V
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
29
[0], given: 14
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
10 Jun 2012, 01:34
Bunuel wrote: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50000. Is Wilma's annual salary greater than Betty's?
Notice that we are told that both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $50,000.
(1) Betty's annual salary is closer to $50,000 than is Wilma's.
----$50,000---(Betty)----(Wilma)---- So, as you can see Wilma's annual salary is greater than Betty's. Sufficient.
(2) Betty's annual salary is closer to $35,000 than it is to Wilma's annual salary.
$35,000----$50,000---(Betty)----(Wilma)---- Again Wilma's annual salary is greater than Betty's. Sufficient.
Answer: D.
Hope it's clear. I believe that OA is wrong. It should be D. Kindly check the OA and edit it. Bunuel - Your explanation is spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 08:11
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club team member
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 11592
Followers: 1799
Kudos [?]:
9583
[1] , given: 826
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 08:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.
_________________
PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 11 Rules for Posting!!!
RESOURCES: [GMAT MATH BOOK]; 1. Triangles; 2. Polygons; 3. Coordinate Geometry; 4. Factorials; 5. Circles; 6. Number Theory
COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. NEW!!!
DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS ; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set. NEW!!!
What are GMAT Club Tests?
25 extra-hard Quant Tests
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 08:27
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than
[#permalink]
28 Jan 2013, 08:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than
|
gmacvik |
2 |
13 Oct 2005, 15:56 |
|
|
|
|
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than
|
nakib77 |
6 |
27 Oct 2005, 14:14 |
 |
|
|
Betty and Sara both earn more than 50000 every year. Is
|
gamjatang |
12 |
16 Dec 2005, 00:17 |
|
|
|
|
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than
|
zoltan |
2 |
16 Jun 2007, 21:47 |
|
|
|
|
The percentage of households with an annual income more than
|
perfectstranger |
4 |
17 Jul 2008, 15:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
