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:

The next set of tough and tricky DS questions. I'll post OA's with detailed explanations after some discussion. Please, post your solutions along with the answers. Good luck!

1. Jules and Jim both invested certain amount of money in bond M for one year, which pays for 12% simple interest annually. If no other investment were made, then Jules initial investment in bond M was how many dollars more than Jim's investment in bond M. (1) In one year Jules earned $24 more than Jim from bond M. (2) If the interest were 20% then in one year Jules would have earned $40 more than Jim from bond M.

4. Of the 58 patients of Vertigo Hospital, 45 have arachnophobia. How many of the patients have acrophobia? (1) The number of patients of Vertigo Hospital who have both arachnophobia and acrophobia is the same as the number of patients who have neither arachnophobia nor acrophobia. (2) 32 patients of Vertigo Hospital have arachnophobia but not acrophobia.

5. If at least one astronaut do NOT listen to Bach at Solaris space station, then how many of 35 astronauts at Solaris space station listen to Bach? (1) Of the astronauts who do NOT listen to Bach 56% are male. (2) Of the astronauts who listen to Bach 70% are female.

7. Set A consists of k distinct numbers. If n numbers are selected from the set one-by-one, where n<=k, what is the probability that numbers will be selected in ascending order? (1) Set A consists of 12 even consecutive integers. (2) n=5.

9. The product of three distinct positive integers is equal to the square of the largest of the three numbers, what is the product of the two smaller numbers? (1) The average (arithmetic mean) of the three numbers is 34/3. (2) The largest number of the three distinct numbers is 24.

10. There is at least one viper and at least one cobra in Pandora's box. How many cobras are there? (1) There are total 99 snakes in Pandora's box. (2) From any two snakes from Pandora's box at least one is a viper.

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies? (1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies. (2) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies.

13. Buster leaves the trailer at noon and walks towards the studio at a constant rate of B miles per hour. 20 minutes later, Charlie leaves the same studio and walks towards the same trailer at a constant rate of C miles per hour along the same route as Buster. Will Buster be closer to the trailer than to the studio when he passes Charlie? (1) Charlie gets to the trailer in 55 minutes. (2) Buster gets to the studio at the same time as Charlie gets to the trailer.

2. If n is a positive integer and p is a prime number, is p a factor of n!?

(1) p is a factor of (n+2)!-n! --> if \(n=2\) then \((n+2)!-n!=22\) and for \(p=2\) then answer will be YES but for \(p=11\) the answer will be NO. Not sufficient.

(2) p is a factor of (n+2)!/n! --> \(\frac{(n+2)!}{n!}=(n+1)(n+2)\) --> if \(n=2\) then \((n+1)(n+2)=12\) and for \(p=2\) then answer will be YES but for \(p=3\) the answer will be NO. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) \((n+2)!-n!=n!((n+1)(n+2)-1)\). Now, \((n+1)(n+2)-1\) and \((n+1)(n+2)\) are consecutive integers. Two consecutive integers are co-prime, which means that they don't share ANY common factor but 1. For example 20 and 21 are consecutive integers, thus only common factor they share is 1. So, as from (2) \(p\) is a factor of \((n+1)(n+2)\) then it can not be a factor of \((n+1)(n+2)-1\), thus in order \(p\) to be a factor of \(n!*((n+1)(n+2)-1)\), from (1), then it should be a factor of the first multiple of this expression: \(n!\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hi Bunuel, I have a question.From 1),cant we have : as p is a factor of (n+2)!-n! so, n![(n+2)(n+1)-1].

.so p is a factor of n! as it is some value * n! ??

2. If n is a positive integer and p is a prime number, is p a factor of n!?

(1) p is a factor of (n+2)!-n! --> if \(n=2\) then \((n+2)!-n!=22\) and for \(p=2\) then answer will be YES but for \(p=11\) the answer will be NO. Not sufficient.

(2) p is a factor of (n+2)!/n! --> \(\frac{(n+2)!}{n!}=(n+1)(n+2)\) --> if \(n=2\) then \((n+1)(n+2)=12\) and for \(p=2\) then answer will be YES but for \(p=3\) the answer will be NO. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) \((n+2)!-n!=n!((n+1)(n+2)-1)\). Now, \((n+1)(n+2)-1\) and \((n+1)(n+2)\) are consecutive integers. Two consecutive integers are co-prime, which means that they don't share ANY common factor but 1. For example 20 and 21 are consecutive integers, thus only common factor they share is 1. So, as from (2) \(p\) is a factor of \((n+1)(n+2)\) then it can not be a factor of \((n+1)(n+2)-1\), thus in order \(p\) to be a factor of \(n!*((n+1)(n+2)-1)\), from (1), then it should be a factor of the first multiple of this expression: \(n!\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hi Bunuel, I have a question.From 1),cant we have : as p is a factor of (n+2)!-n! so, n![(n+2)(n+1)-1].

.so p is a factor of n! as it is some value * n! ??

Please clarify.

p is a factor of \((n+2)!-n!=n!((n+1)(n+2)-1)\) does not necessarily means that p is a factor of n! it could be a factor of another multiple: ((n+1)(n+2)-1). Check examples in (1) to verify.

13. Buster leaves the trailer at noon and walks towards the studio at a constant rate of B miles per hour. 20 minutes later, Charlie leaves the same studio and walks towards the same trailer at a constant rate of C miles per hour along the same route as Buster. Will Buster be closer to the trailer than to the studio when he passes Charlie?

(1) Charlie gets to the trailer in 55 minutes. No info about Buster. Not sufficient.

(2) Buster gets to the studio at the same time as Charlie gets to the trailer --> Charlie needed 20 minutes less than Buster to cover the same distance, which means that the rate of Charlie is higher than that of Buster. Since after they pass each other they need the same time to get to their respective destinations (they get at the same time to their respective destinations) then Buster had less distance to cover ahead (at lower rate) than he had already covered (which would be covered by Charlie at higher rate). Sufficient.

Answer: B.

Responding to a pm:

This is not a weighted average question since there is no 'average' speed to be considered. This is more apt for relative speed concepts though I would think in terms of ratio of speeds (who is faster and who is slower) since we don't need to give values - only whether he is closer to trailer or studio. So we only need to figure out their speeds relative to each other (more/less).
_________________

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunnel,

I did it as below, please confirm if this method can be used in all the cases. is 45=27m+27b i.e. 5=3m+3b 1. 15>=11m+7b (given in question stem) 15>=7m+11b add both equations: 30>=18m+18b 5>=6m+6b sufficient

2. 15>=10m+8b => 8/3*(5=3m+3b) => 13.33=8m+8b here we don't know for sure whether 1.7 will be sufficient to buy 2 muffins hence insufficient

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunnel,

I did it as below, please confirm if this method can be used in all the cases. is 45=27m+27b i.e. 5=3m+3b 1. 15>=11m+7b (given in question stem) 15>=7m+11b add both equations: 30>=18m+18b 5>=6m+6b sufficient

2. 15>=10m+8b => 8/3*(5=3m+3b) => 13.33=8m+8b here we don't know for sure whether 1.7 will be sufficient to buy 2 muffins hence insufficient

Yes, it's a valid approach, though the red parts are not correct.

The question asks whether \(27m+27b\leq{45}\) (\(3m+3b\leq{5}\)) not whether \(27m+27b={45}\) (should be \(\leq\) instead of =).

Next, when reducing \(18m+18b\leq{30}\) you get \(3m+3b\leq{5}\) or \(6m+6b\leq{10}\) not \(6m+6b\leq{5}\).

The next set of tough and tricky DS questions. I'll post OA's with detailed explanations after some discussion. Please, post your solutions along with the answers. Good luck!

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies? (1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies. (2) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies.

7. Set A consists of k distinct numbers. If n numbers are selected from the set one-by-one, where n<=k, what is the probability that numbers will be selected in ascending order?

(1) Set A consists of 12 even consecutive integers; (2) n=5.

We should understand following two things: 1. The probability of selecting any n numbers from the set is the same. Why should any subset of n numbers have higher or lower probability of being selected than some other subset of n numbers? Probability doesn't favor any particular subset.

2. Now, consider that the subset selected is \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\), where \(x_1<x_2<...<x_n\). We can select this subset of numbers in \(n!\) # of ways and out of these n! ways only one, namely \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\) will be in ascending order. So 1 out of n!. \(P=\frac{1}{n!}\).

Hence, according to the above the only thing we need to know to answer the question is the size of the subset (n) we are selecting from set A.

Answer: B.

One doubt dear Lets assume k=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Now if first select the number 4 then the total number i.e. k is definitely going to affect the total probability Please clear.

7. Set A consists of k distinct numbers. If n numbers are selected from the set one-by-one, where n<=k, what is the probability that numbers will be selected in ascending order?

(1) Set A consists of 12 even consecutive integers; (2) n=5.

We should understand following two things: 1. The probability of selecting any n numbers from the set is the same. Why should any subset of n numbers have higher or lower probability of being selected than some other subset of n numbers? Probability doesn't favor any particular subset.

2. Now, consider that the subset selected is \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\), where \(x_1<x_2<...<x_n\). We can select this subset of numbers in \(n!\) # of ways and out of these n! ways only one, namely \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\) will be in ascending order. So 1 out of n!. \(P=\frac{1}{n!}\).

Hence, according to the above the only thing we need to know to answer the question is the size of the subset (n) we are selecting from set A.

Answer: B.

I am not sure if I understand correctly.

There are a total of k integers. So probability of selecting first integer 1/k, now probability of second integer out of k-1 integer is 1/(k-1) and so on... so selecting n integers would be 1/(k*(k-1)*(k-2)*...(k-(n-1)) so we need both k & n. Am I missing something here?

We are not interested in the probability of selecting first, second, etc numbers from the set. We are interested in the probability that numbers selected will be in ascending order.

Now, any group of n numbers is equally likely to be selected and these n numbers can be selected in n! ways, out of which only 1 will be in ascending order so the probability is 1/n!.

Hope it's clear.

You wrote in your explanation that " n numbers can be selected in n!ways" but I think it should be kCn

7. Set A consists of k distinct numbers. If n numbers are selected from the set one-by-one, where n<=k, what is the probability that numbers will be selected in ascending order?

(1) Set A consists of 12 even consecutive integers; (2) n=5.

We should understand following two things: 1. The probability of selecting any n numbers from the set is the same. Why should any subset of n numbers have higher or lower probability of being selected than some other subset of n numbers? Probability doesn't favor any particular subset.

2. Now, consider that the subset selected is \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\), where \(x_1<x_2<...<x_n\). We can select this subset of numbers in \(n!\) # of ways and out of these n! ways only one, namely \(\{x_1, \ x_2, \ ..., \ x_n\}\) will be in ascending order. So 1 out of n!. \(P=\frac{1}{n!}\).

Hence, according to the above the only thing we need to know to answer the question is the size of the subset (n) we are selecting from set A.

Answer: B.

One doubt dear Lets assume k=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Now if first select the number 4 then the total number i.e. k is definitely going to affect the total probability Please clear.

Great Question Bunuel!

As for your doubt Vinay, let me try to explain it. The question does not care about the number of ways of selecting n numbers from k numbers. It is only asking for the probability of selecting numbers in increasing order. Probability of selecting numbers in increasing order + Probability of selecting numbers in some other order = 1

Say out of the 10 numbers, you select 3 numbers. 1, 5, and 7

You can select them in increasing order = 1, 5, 7 - total 1 way You can select them in some other order = 1, 7, 5/ 5, 1, 7/5, 7, 1/7, 5, 1/7, 1, 5 - total 5 ways

Probability of selecting numbers in increasing order = 1/6 Probability of selecting numbers in some other order = 5/6

Notice that it doesn't matter how many numbers there are in the original list. All we care about is arranging the n selected numbers. One arrangement will be in increasing order and the others will be non-increasing.

How I approached the problem was that we are given 11m+7b=15

Statement 1: 7m+11b =15 If you solve both you get m=b i.e. cost of muffin is equal to brownie.

and so I get cost of each is 15/18 (putting it back in given statement. and what we need is 27m +27b. so 54 x 15/18 = 45. Hence sufficient.

Statement 2: 10m+8b = 15

Again solving it with given statement gets me m=b. Therefore, sufficient.

Therefore D.

What am I missing here?

Bunuel wrote:

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

How I approached the problem was that we are given 11m+7b=15

Statement 1: 7m+11b =15 If you solve both you get m=b i.e. cost of muffin is equal to brownie.

and so I get cost of each is 15/18 (putting it back in given statement. and what we need is 27m +27b. so 54 x 15/18 = 45. Hence sufficient.

Statement 2: 10m+8b = 15

Again solving it with given statement gets me m=b. Therefore, sufficient.

Therefore D.

What am I missing here?

Bunuel wrote:

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

In all cases we have "\(\leq\)" signs not "\(=\)" signs. The correct answer is A.

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunnel,

Thanks for updating such elaborate answers ,I have one confusion regarding the answer posted above,which I have marked in red.

If we can substitute one muffin with one brownie why can't we be sure to replace 2 brw with 2 muffins.

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunnel,

Thanks for updating such elaborate answers ,I have one confusion regarding the answer posted above,which I have marked in red.

If we can substitute one muffin with one brownie why can't we be sure to replace 2 brw with 2 muffins.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Countdown

Say 11 muffins and 7 brownies cost $14 and the price of a muffin is less than the price of a brownie.

10 muffins and 8 brownies will cost more than $14 (since m<b). 9 muffins and 9 brownies will cost even more than that, so it could be more than $15.

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel ,

I took gmatclub test and encountered the same question. The same explanation is provided in the solutions too.

But , I am still not able to understand how you calculated this 4....4 .

\(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies.

11. Alice has $15, which is enough to buy 11 muffins and 7 brownies, is $45 enough to buy 27 muffins and 27 brownies?

700+ question.

Given: \(11m+7b\leq{15}\), where \(m\) and \(b\) are prices of one muffin and one brownie respectively. Question: is \(27m+27b\leq{45}\)? --> \(9m+9b\leq{15}\). Question basically asks whether we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies.

Now if \(m>b\) we can easily substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies (since \(2m\) will be more than \(2b\)). But if \(m<b\) we won't know this for sure.

But consider the case when we are told that we can substitute 3 muffins with 3 brownies. In both cases (\(m>b\) or \(m<b\)) it would mean that we can substitute 2 (so less than 3) muffins with 2 brownies, but again we won't be sure whether we can substitute 4 (so more than 3) muffins with 4 brownies.

(1) $15 is enough to buy 7 muffins and 11 brownies --> \(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies, so according to above we can surely substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Sufficient. (1) $15 is enough to buy 10 muffins and 8 brownies --> \(10m+8b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 1 muffin with 1 brownie, so according to above this is does not ensure that we can substitute 2 muffins with 2 brownies. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel ,

I took gmatclub test and encountered the same question. The same explanation is provided in the solutions too.

But , I am still not able to understand how you calculated this 4....4 .

\(7m+11b\leq{15}\): we can substitute 4 muffins with 4 brownies.

Please help

Thanks

That's because both the question and the solution written by me.

Bunuel, I have a doubt in 6th question part 2 explanation. 6. Is the perimeter of triangle with the sides a, b and c greater than 30? (1) a-b=15. sufficient. (2) The area of the triangle is 50. There is another property of equilateral triangle which states that for a given area equilateral triangle has the lowest perimeter.

Considering that : given area is 50=s^2 sqrt3/2 which gives us s=7.598 thus perimeter 3s = 22.79

Which means for a given area of 50 we can have a triangle with perimeter 22.79 which is less than 30. Thus (2) insufficient.

Kindly help to verify. Thanks.
_________________

Piyush K ----------------------- Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison Don't forget to press--> Kudos My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use?| 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New) Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

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...