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.

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:

I agree with the OA - the answer is C - both statements are required - for S1, if k is 1, then it doesn't hold true, S2 doesn't hold good by itself - so with S1 and S2 we can say that n is divisible by 6 - even with the statement that n is a positive integer. Any other logic?

This is besides the point, but Why in the world do you guys think if k=1, then n is not divisible by 6? If k=1, then n=0 0 is divisible by any number. Am I missing something here?

I agree with the OA - the answer is C - both statements are required - for S1, if k is 1, then it doesn't hold true, S2 doesn't hold good by itself - so with S1 and S2 we can say that n is divisible by 6 - even with the statement that n is a positive integer. Any other logic?

if K=1 then n=0..for argument sake 0/6 is divisble by 6..

If that is the logic, then 0 is divisible by all numbers - that is besides the point - I still say the OA is correct - otherwise it is a trial question meant to confuse people. Anyways we can continue with the argument. Quick question - 0 is not counted as a positive integer - if we say k not equal to 1, then we can conclude that S1 is sufficient

If n and k are positive integers, is n divisible by 6?

(1) n = k(k + 1)(k - 1)

(2) k is not equal to 1, is a multiple of 3.

What are u guys thinking Stat 1 is clearly sufficient

n and k are positive integers

n and k cannot be zero

so in statement if u think of taking k as 1 then n=0 and 0 is not positive(see the line in red) So according to the given details k has to be greater than 1

so stat 1 is suff

now lets see that second stat

k is not equal to 1, is a multiple of 3

as every second number is even and every third number is a multiple of 3 this is also correct

I get A as well. Durgesh makes a good point that you cannot take anything you've learned in (1) when you process (2).

The only way I could see C working is if it said that n and k were non-negative integers.... Positive integers, by definition, cannot include zero. _________________

This is besides the point, but Why in the world do you guys think if k=1, then n is not divisible by 6? If k=1, then n=0 0 is divisible by any number. Am I missing something here?

BTW, I got A. I don't agree with the OA.

This was my argument as well. This question sucks.

If n and k are positive integers, is n divisible by 6?

(1) n = k(k + 1)(k - 1) (2) k is not equal to 1, "xxx" is a multiple of 3.

is something missing in st 2 after "k is not equal to 1," ?

from the question stem, it is clear that n and k are +ve.

1 says n is multiple of 3 +ve consecutive integer. any 3 +ve (in fact any -ve as well) consecutive integers are evenly divisible by 6. so n is divisible by 6. suff..

2 says k is an integer >1 but it has nothing to do with n. so insuff...