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

 It is currently 07 Mar 2014, 19:34

### 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

# If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b

Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 1

If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  18 Sep 2010, 19:16
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

54% (01:49) correct 45% (01:10) wrong based on 256 sessions
If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b by a@b=a+b-ab, which of the following statements must be true for all integers a, b and c?

I. a@b = b@a
II. a@0 = a
III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c)

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) I and II only
(D) I and III only
(E) I, II and III
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 16782
Followers: 2770

Kudos [?]: 17564 [3] , given: 2183

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  18 Sep 2010, 19:29
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
cmugeria wrote:
If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b by a@b=a+b-ab, which of the following statements must be true for all integers a, b and c?

I. a@b = b@a
II. a@0 = a
III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c)

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) I and II only
(D) I and III only
(E) I, II and III

We have that: a@b=a+b-ab

I. a@b = b@a --> a@b=a+b-ab and b@a=b+a-ab --> a+b-ab=b+a-ab, results match;

II. a@0 = a --> a@0=a+0-a*0=0 --> 0=0, results match;

III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c) --> (a@b)@c=a@b+c-(a@b)*c=(a+b-ab)+c-(a+b-ab)c=a+b+c-ab-ac-bc+abc and a@(b@c)=a+b@c-a*(b@c)=a+(b+c-bc)-(b+c-bc)a=a+b+c-bc-ab+abc, results match.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 27 Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Location: Bulgaria
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT Date: 01-30-2013
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 5

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  28 Jan 2013, 21:58
1
KUDOS
subhashghosh wrote:
(I) and (II) are obviously correct.

For (III)

(a+b-ab)@c = (a + b - ab)@c = a + b - ab + c - c(a + b - ab) = a + b - ab + c - ac - ab + abc

a@(b@c) = a@(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc - a(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc -ab - ac + abc

Been looking at this for a while and still can't figure it out.. I thought that we must ALWAYS first do the calculations in the brackets and open them, and then do the remaining calculations. as we have a@(b@c), how come do you straight come up to (a + b - ab)@c, when it's b@c in the brackets, not a@b anymore.. finding this one a bit confusing.. thanks for explaining in advance

EDIT:

OK, I think I get it now.. pls, have a look at my upload and let me know if I am correct.. this is the left side of the equation in (III). With the right one, we do the exact same thing, right?
Attachments

a@b.jpg [ 861.06 KiB | Viewed 5965 times ]

Intern
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [1] , given: 0

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  28 Oct 2013, 11:40
1
KUDOS
jlgdr wrote:
Hey there folks, sorry to bump on an old thread. Just wondering, is there a way to evaluate statement 3 faster?
I believe this questions takes around 2 minutes and evaluating statement 3 takes a lot of work and is prone to errors.

Just wondering if I'm doing this the correct/most efficient way

Thanks guys
Cheers!

J

In this problem we have been asked to check the commutative and associative property of the given function. These properties are defined as below:

Commutative: In mathematics, a binary operation is commutative if changing the order of the operands does not change the result.

Associative: Within an expression containing two or more occurrences in a row of the same associative operator, the order in which the operations are performed does not matter as long as the sequence of the operands is not changed. That is, rearranging the parentheses in such an expression will not change its value.

If you're wondering if commutativity implies associativity in mathematics then the answer is NO. However, for simple addition and multiplication functions commutativity does imply associativity and hence in such cases option 3 need not be tested if option 1 is true. However, the only way to solve such problems which involve functions other than simple addition and multiplication would be to solve the expression completely as stated above.
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1698
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 36

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  19 Apr 2011, 18:25
(I) and (II) are obviously correct.

For (III)

(a+b-ab)@c = (a + b - ab)@c = a + b - ab + c - c(a + b - ab) = a + b - ab + c - ac - ab + abc

a@(b@c) = a@(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc - a(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc -ab - ac + abc

_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Posts: 45
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 570 Q45 V25
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 20

Re: GMATPrep#1 Question: If the operation (*) is defined for... [#permalink]  15 Jan 2012, 16:17
I was careless in writing the equation for option 3, else it was easy. I got it wrong but once you write it you clearly see that C also satifies the equation.
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Posts: 81
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 26

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  22 May 2012, 01:25
subhashghosh wrote:
(I) and (II) are obviously correct.

For (III)

(a+b-ab)@c = (a + b - ab)@c = a + b - ab + c - c(a + b - ab) = a + b - ab + c - ac - ab + abc

a@(b@c) = a@(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc - a(b + c - bc) = a + b + c - bc -ab - ac + abc

small typo : ab should be bc , in the above post
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 30
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  22 May 2012, 02:09
E is the answer. It took some time to solve this but was able to slove faster when assuming values for a b and c.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 7
Location: Italy
Schools: Bocconi '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q47 V42
GPA: 3.87
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  18 Dec 2012, 07:45
Sorry for bumping up an old thread, I have a doubt: my approach for solving the question was to assume that the operation in this case was the union between two sets, a and b, and consequently the three points were the properties of the union of sets. Is that a correct approach or might it be too risky in the actual exam? (or is it even a wrong assumption, and I got it right out of luck?)
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 465
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V0
GPA: 3.23
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 11

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  18 Dec 2012, 20:29
I. a@b = b@a
a+b-ab=b+a-ab TRUE!

II. a@0 = a
a+0-0 = a TRUE!

III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c)
a+b-ab+c-ac-bc+abc = b+c-bc + a - ab-ac+abc STRIKE OUT DUPLICATES ON RHS and LHS! TRUE!

Answer: I,II, and III or (E)
_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 16782
Followers: 2770

Kudos [?]: 17564 [0], given: 2183

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  19 Dec 2012, 02:24
Expert's post
fguardini1 wrote:
Sorry for bumping up an old thread, I have a doubt: my approach for solving the question was to assume that the operation in this case was the union between two sets, a and b, and consequently the three points were the properties of the union of sets. Is that a correct approach or might it be too risky in the actual exam? (or is it even a wrong assumption, and I got it right out of luck?)

That's not correct. Stem defines some function @ for all integers a and b by a@b=a+b-ab. For example if a=1 and b=2, then a@b=1@2=1+2-1*2.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 32

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  04 Jan 2013, 10:47
in equ. 3 :

I put three random numbers like (5,3,2) and tested it. however there's always a little chance of error.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 134
Schools: HBS '16, Stanford '16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 16

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  07 May 2013, 11:22
Bunuel wrote:
We have that: a@b=a+b-ab

I. a@b = b@a --> a@b=a+b-ab and b@a=b+a-ab --> a+b-ab=b+a-ab, results match;

II. a@0 = a --> a@0=a+0-a*0=0 --> 0=0, results match;

III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c) --> (a@b)@c=a@b+c-(a@b)*c=(a+b-ab)+c-(a+b-ab)c=a+b+c-ab-ac-bc+abc and a@(b@c)=a+b@c-a*(b@c)=a+(b+c-bc)-(b+c-bc)a=a+b+c-bc-ab+abc, results match.

Bunuel, is there a faster method than solving it with algebra or picking numbers?
Thanks!
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Posts: 228
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 670 Q39 V41
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 40

Re: GMAT PREP QUESTION [#permalink]  02 Oct 2013, 12:21
danzig wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
We have that: a@b=a+b-ab

I. a@b = b@a --> a@b=a+b-ab and b@a=b+a-ab --> a+b-ab=b+a-ab, results match;

II. a@0 = a --> a@0=a+0-a*0=0 --> 0=0, results match;

III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c) --> (a@b)@c=a@b+c-(a@b)*c=(a+b-ab)+c-(a+b-ab)c=a+b+c-ab-ac-bc+abc and a@(b@c)=a+b@c-a*(b@c)=a+(b+c-bc)-(b+c-bc)a=a+b+c-bc-ab+abc, results match.

Bunuel, is there a faster method than solving it with algebra or picking numbers?
Thanks!

Came here to ask this. I got this one wrong, the proof for III would have taken about 5 minutes for me to figure out
VP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1179
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Stanford '17
GPA: 3.5
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 125

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  23 Oct 2013, 12:34
Hey there folks, sorry to bump on an old thread. Just wondering, is there a way to evaluate statement 3 faster?
I believe this questions takes around 2 minutes and evaluating statement 3 takes a lot of work and is prone to errors.

Just wondering if I'm doing this the correct/most efficient way

Thanks guys
Cheers!

J
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2013
Posts: 41
Concentration: Real Estate, Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q V
GPA: 3.73
WE: Analyst (Real Estate)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  27 Oct 2013, 13:13
Would it be smart to pick numbers for each of the variables? I selected 1&3 only since I got mixed up with the letter variables. Is picking number the most efficient way to approach this problem?
VP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1179
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Stanford '17
GPA: 3.5
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 125

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  31 Oct 2013, 04:39
Well, can't argue that learning the definitions is in fact quite interesting and thank you for that.
Nevertheless, I was really intereted in solving statement 3 quicker/faster/more efficient
So, being able to recognize if operations in the different order given will yield same result without having to go through all the long distribution process.

I will try to come up with a faster way but if anyone else come's up with a nice and elegant approach I'd be happy to give some nice Kudos for the collection

Cheers
J
Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 938
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 154 [0], given: 543

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  31 Oct 2013, 04:55
jlgdr wrote:
Well, can't argue that learning the definitions is in fact quite interesting and thank you for that.
Nevertheless, I was really intereted in solving statement 3 quicker/faster/more efficient
So, being able to recognize if operations in the different order given will yield same result without having to go through all the long distribution process.

I will try to come up with a faster way but if anyone else come's up with a nice and elegant approach I'd be happy to give some nice Kudos for the collection

Cheers
J

You can always test values that's an alternative

Let a=1,b=2 and c=3

Definition => a@b=a+b-ab

Option 3

III. (a@b)@c = a@(b@c)

a@b = 1 + 2 -2 = 1
1@3 = 1+3 -3 = 1

B@c = 2@3 = 5-6 = -1
1@-1 = 1 - 1 - ( -1 * 1)
=1

LHS = RHS
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 78
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 590

Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b [#permalink]  01 Mar 2014, 15:08
Just took this question today, and I was also wondering if there were a way to solve it more quickly than performing the heavy manipulations that are in III or guessing numbers.
Re: If the operation @ is defined for all integers a and b   [#permalink] 01 Mar 2014, 15:08
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
if the operation & is defined for all integers a and b 6 08 Nov 2005, 21:22
If the operation (*) is defined for all integers a and b by 6 01 Oct 2007, 15:04
If the operation * is defined for all integers a and b by 5 06 Jan 2008, 15:34
If the operation * is defined for all integers a and b by 2 31 Jan 2008, 18:36
1 The operation & is defined for all integers a and b by the 3 24 Oct 2013, 09:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by