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:

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d [#permalink]
09 Dec 2012, 23:33

4

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

2

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

74% (02:27) correct
26% (01:42) wrong based on 141 sessions

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d that depends on the total price x of the merchandise in the order, where d and x are in dollars and

d = 3, if 0<x<=100 d = 3 + (x-100)/100, if 100<x<=500 d = 7, if x>500

If George placed two separate orders with the company, was the total price of the merchandise in the two orders greater than $499?

(1) The delivery fee for one of the two orders was $3. (2) The sum of the delivery fees for the two orders was $10.

Need help to tackle such questions under 1.5 mins. source: Gmat Prep

Re: For each order [#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 00:01

1) Obviously insufficient. The other order could have any value.

2) We can easily create a situation for which the value is more than $499. So lets try to create a situation for which the value is lesser than $499 to prove insufficiency.

We can see that atleast one package has to be more than $100. To minimize the value of this , the first package has to be worth $100. So, for insufficiency, the second package can be at most only $399 and so "d" can only be a maximum of nearly $6. But in such a case, the toatl will not add up to 10. Hence the second package HAS to be more than $399. Sufficient _________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Re: For each order [#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 00:11

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d that depends on the total price x of the merchandise in the order, where d and x are in dollars and

d = 3, if 0<x<=100 d = 3 + (x-100)/100, if 100<x<=500 d = 7, if x>500

If George placed two separate orders with the company, was the total price of the merchandise in the two orders greater than $499?

Notice that the highest charge for the delivery with the second formula is for x=500, thus it equals to d=3+(500-100)/100=$7.

(1) The delivery fee for one of the orders was $3. The price of the merchandise for that order is less than or equal to 100, but we know nothing about the second order. Not sufficient.

(2) The sum of the delivery fees for the two orders was $10. If the delivery charges for the two orders are $3 and $7, then the price of the second merchandise must be more than or equal to $500, which means that the total price must be greater than $499. Sufficient.

Now, if both delivery charges were calculated with the second formula, then we'd have \((3+\frac{x_1-100}{100})+(3+\frac{x_2-100}{100})=10\) --> \(x_1+x_2=600>499\).

So, we have that in both possible cases the total price of the merchandise in the two orders is greater than $499. Sufficient.

Re: For each order [#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 00:22

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

MacFauz wrote:

1) Obviously insufficient. The other order could have any value.

2) We can easily create a situation for which the value is more than $499. So lets try to create a situation for which the value is lesser than $499 to prove insufficiency.

We can see that atleast one package has to be more than $100. To minimize the value of this , the first package has to be worth $100. So, for insufficiency, the second package can be at most only $399 and so "d" can only be a maximum of nearly $6. But in such a case, the toatl will not add up to 10. Hence the second package HAS to be more than $399. Sufficient

Notice that we can have a case when charges for both deliveries are calculated with the second formula, for example x1=$250 and x2=$350, in this case the total price still would be $10. _________________

Re: For each order [#permalink]
18 Jan 2013, 02:51

Bunuel wrote:

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d that depends on the total price x of the merchandise in the order, where d and x are in dollars and

d = 3, if 0<x<=100 d = 3 + (x-100)/100, if 100<x<=500 d = 7, if x>500

If George placed two separate orders with the company, was the total price of the merchandise in the two orders greater than $499?

Notice that the highest charge for the delivery with the second formula is for x=500, thus it equals to d=3+(500-100)/100=$7.

(1) The delivery fee for one of the orders was $3. The price of the merchandise for that order is less than or equal to 100, but we know nothing about the second order. Not sufficient.

(2) The sum of the delivery fees for the two orders was $10. If the delivery charges for the two orders are $3 and $7, then the price of the second merchandise must be more than or equal to $500, which means that the total price must be greater than $499. Sufficient.

Now, if both delivery charges were calculated with the second formula, then we'd have \((3+\frac{x_1-100}{100})+(3+\frac{x_2-100}{100})=10\) --> \(x_1+x_2=600>499\).

So, we have that in both possible cases the total price of the merchandise in the two orders is greater than $499. Sufficient.

Answer: B.

Hope it's clear.

Thanks this was really helpful, I missed out on the second case. where there can be 2 values within the range of d=3 _________________

Re: For each order [#permalink]
26 Mar 2013, 05:36

Bunuel wrote:

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d that depends on the total price x of the merchandise in the order, where d and x are in dollars and

d = 3, if 0<x<=100 d = 3 + (x-100)/100, if 100<x<=500 d = 7, if x>500

If George placed two separate orders with the company, was the total price of the merchandise in the two orders greater than $499?

Notice that the highest charge for the delivery with the second formula is for x=500, thus it equals to d=3+(500-100)/100=$7.

(1) The delivery fee for one of the orders was $3. The price of the merchandise for that order is less than or equal to 100, but we know nothing about the second order. Not sufficient.

(2) The sum of the delivery fees for the two orders was $10. If the delivery charges for the two orders are $3 and $7, then the price of the second merchandise must be more than or equal to $500, which means that the total price must be greater than $499. Sufficient.

Now, if both delivery charges were calculated with the second formula, then we'd have \((3+\frac{x_1-100}{100})+(3+\frac{x_2-100}{100})=10\) --> \(x_1+x_2=600>499\).

So, we have that in both possible cases the total price of the merchandise in the two orders is greater than $499. Sufficient.

Answer: B.

Hope it's clear.

Thanks Its really so helpful.I was confused of the statement 2.Now its clear

Re: For each order [#permalink]
14 May 2013, 10:17

Bunuel wrote:

[b]Now, if both delivery charges were calculated with the second formula, then we'd have \((3+\frac{x_1-100}{100})+(3+\frac{x_2-100}{100})=10\) --> \(x_1+x_2=600>499\)

can you please clarify this part more? thanks in advance _________________

Re: For each order [#permalink]
30 Jul 2013, 04:25

TheNona wrote:

Bunuel wrote:

[b]Now, if both delivery charges were calculated with the second formula, then we'd have \((3+\frac{x_1-100}{100})+(3+\frac{x_2-100}{100})=10\) --> \(x_1+x_2=600>499\)

can you please clarify this part more? thanks in advance

Re: For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d [#permalink]
12 Jan 2014, 05:12

Marcab wrote:

For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d that depends on the total price x of the merchandise in the order, where d and x are in dollars and

d = 3, if 0<x<=100 d = 3 + (x-100)/100, if 100<x<=500 d = 7, if x>500

If George placed two separate orders with the company, was the total price of the merchandise in the two orders greater than $499?

(1) The delivery fee for one of the two orders was $3. (2) The sum of the delivery fees for the two orders was $10.

Right off the bat, you need to know if: 2*x > 499

1) This one tells you that one of the orders is >= 100, it's insufficient because the other order could be any value

2) This tells you that the total delivery was > 500 + (another value between 1 and 100, inclusive), because there are no other combinations of 3 and 7 other than 3 + 7 that yield 10. So this is clearly sufficient.

Answer is B

gmatclubot

Re: For each order, a certain company charges a delivery fee d
[#permalink]
12 Jan 2014, 05:12

Low GPA MBA Acceptance Rate Analysis Many applicants worry about applying to business school if they have a low GPA. I analyzed the low GPA MBA acceptance rate at...

Every student has a predefined notion about a MBA degree:- hefty packages, good job opportunities, improvement in position and salaries but how many really know the journey of becoming...