Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 20 Apr 2015, 22:52

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $5000  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics Author Message TAGS: Director Status: Finally Done. Admitted in Kellogg for 2015 intake Joined: 25 Jun 2011 Posts: 563 Location: United Kingdom Concentration: International Business, Strategy GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40 GPA: 2.9 WE: Information Technology (Consulting) Followers: 19 Kudos [?]: 967 [0], given: 217 Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than$5000 [#permalink]  09 Jun 2012, 13:42
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:35) correct 31% (00:46) wrong based on 123 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. [Reveal] Spoiler: OA _________________ Best Regards, E. MGMAT 1 --> 530 MGMAT 2--> 640 MGMAT 3 ---> 610 GMAT ==> 730 Last edited by Bunuel on 28 Jan 2013, 07:19, edited 2 times in total. Edited the OA Math Expert Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 27000 Followers: 4169 Kudos [?]: 40035 [5] , given: 5397 Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink] 09 Jun 2012, 13:52 5 This post received KUDOS Expert's post 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.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 27000
Followers: 4169

Kudos [?]: 40035 [1] , given: 5397

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]  28 Jan 2013, 07:24
1
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". Hope it's clear. _________________ Math Expert Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 27000 Followers: 4169 Kudos [?]: 40035 [1] , given: 5397 Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than$5000 [#permalink]  08 Jul 2014, 05:54
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
janxavier wrote:
Hey guys just one small question.

If the test makers intended to say that Betty and Wilma's annual salaries put together was more than 50000 how could they have framed the question. I am non-native speaker so it kinda took me a while to know that they meant Betty > 50000 and Wilma > 50000. Plz help

It would be something like "combined salary of Betty and Wilma is more than $50000" or "together Betty and Wilma earn annual salary of more than$50000".
_________________
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2012
Posts: 83
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 [?]: 49 [0], given: 14

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than [#permalink]  10 Jun 2012, 00:34
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: 07 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, 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. Intern Joined: 07 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, 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
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 4616
Followers: 284

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $5000 [#permalink] 06 Jul 2014, 22:15 Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot! Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos). Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email. _________________ Intern Joined: 28 Dec 2013 Posts: 42 Location: United States GPA: 3 WE: Information Technology (Insurance) Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 18 Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than$5000 [#permalink]  08 Jul 2014, 05:49
Hey guys just one small question.

If the test makers intended to say that Betty and Wilma's annual salaries put together was more than 50000 how could they have framed the question. I am non-native speaker so it kinda took me a while to know that they meant Betty > 50000 and Wilma > 50000. Plz help
_________________

Never give up, never celebrate, never leave your spot until it is finally over
We are winning this GMAT-war together

"Your one spot for all your GMAT and B-school ranking know hows" - Click here

Re: Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than $5000 [#permalink] 08 Jul 2014, 05:49 Similar topics Replies Last post Similar Topics: 2 A salesperson for an automobile dealer earns an annual salary of$25,0 7 09 Oct 2013, 13:50
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than 2 16 Jun 2007, 20:47
Betty and Sara both earn more than 50000 every year. Is 12 15 Dec 2005, 23:17
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than 6 27 Oct 2005, 13:14
It is true that unionized women earn, on average, more than 2 13 Oct 2005, 14:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Both Betty and Wilma earn annual salaries of more than \$5000

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.