In a certain business, production index p is directly : GMAT Data Sufficiency (DS)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 07 Dec 2016, 15:42

### 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

# In a certain business, production index p is directly

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [3] , given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2008, 23:49
3
KUDOS
29
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

59% (02:10) correct 41% (01:22) wrong based on 1118 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This topic is locked. If you want to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum.

In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Bunuel on 18 Jul 2016, 22:53, edited 4 times in total.
Edited the question
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 405 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 00:31
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
we need P when i is some value...

we know p is dependent on e and e is dependent on i

In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60 -> does not give the value or relation between e and P thus insufficient
2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50 -> gives the relation between p and i thus we can find p when i=70

thus B
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 06:22
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
i say B as well, unless im missing something.

From stat 1, you know relationship btwn e and i, but you dont know what it is btwn p and e ... so insuff.

From stat 2, you are given the relationship btwn p and i, and from the stem you know what i is. so suff.
Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2010, 18:50
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 35912
Followers: 6851

Kudos [?]: 90026 [14] , given: 10402

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2010, 00:45
14
KUDOS
Expert's post
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

$$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger too, so there is some non-zero constant $$x$$ such that $$a=xb$$;

So if $$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=xb$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is directly proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{1}{x}*a$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger too).

$$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets smaller, so there is some non-zero constant constant $$y$$ such that $$a=\frac{y}{b}$$.

So if $$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=\frac{y}{b}$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is inversely proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{y}{a}$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets smaller).

As for the question:
In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

Given: $$p=ex$$ and $$e=iy$$ (for some constants $$x$$ and $$y$$), so $$p=ixy$$. Question: $$p=70xy=?$$ So, basically we should find the value of $$xy$$.

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60 --> as $$e=iy$$ then $$0.5=60y$$ --> we can find the value of $$y$$, but still not sufficient.
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50 --> as $$p=ixy$$ then $$2=50xy$$ --> we can find the value of $$xy$$. Sufficient.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7072
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2086

Kudos [?]: 13291 [2] , given: 222

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2010, 05:41
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e,
implies p = ke (k is the constant of proportionality)

e is in turn directly proportional to investment i

implies e = mi (m is the constant of proportionality. Note here that I haven't taken the constant of proportionality as k here since the constant above and this constant could be different)

Then, p = kmi (km is the constant of proportionality here. It doesn't matter that we depict it using two variables. It is still just a number)

e.g. if p = 2e and e = 3i
p = 6i will be the relation. 6 being the constant of proportionality.

So if you have i and need p, you either need this constant directly (as you can find from statement 2) or you need both k and m (statement 1 only gives you m).
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Posts: 169 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 7 Re: In a certain business, production index p is directly [#permalink] ### Show Tags 29 Nov 2010, 20:54 Thanks Karishma and Bunuel very helpful explanations. Intern Joined: 05 Mar 2013 Posts: 45 Location: India Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing GMAT Date: 06-05-2013 GPA: 3.2 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 14 Re: In a certain business, production index p is directly [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 May 2013, 08:17 If P id directly proportional to E then what is the relation between them? Is it only P = E * x Or can it also be P = E*x + y. In both the cases P is directly proportional to E. As in the question the author doesn't mention anything about the values of the variables when either of them is zero, it leads to a confusing situation. Please Clarify _________________ "Kudos" will help me a lot!!!!!!Please donate some!!! Completed Official Quant Review OG - Quant In Progress Official Verbal Review OG 13th ed MGMAT IR AWA Structure Yet to do 100 700+ SC questions MR Verbal MR Quant Verbal is a ghost. Cant find head and tail of it. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7072 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2086 Kudos [?]: 13291 [0], given: 222 Re: In a certain business, production index p is directly [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 May 2013, 08:02 SrinathVangala wrote: If P id directly proportional to E then what is the relation between them? Is it only P = E * x Or can it also be P = E*x + y. In both the cases P is directly proportional to E. As in the question the author doesn't mention anything about the values of the variables when either of them is zero, it leads to a confusing situation. Please Clarify It is P = E*k only. It cannot be P = E*k + m Directly proportional means that if one doubles, other doubles too. If one becomes half, other becomes half too. It doesn't happen in case you add a constant. P = 2E + 1 If E = 5, P = 11 If E = 10, P = 21 _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 328
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

25 May 2014, 07:49
Bunuel wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

$$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger too, so there is some non-zero constant $$x$$ such that $$a=xb$$;

So if $$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=xb$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is directly proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{1}{x}*a$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger too).

$$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets smaller, so there is some non-zero constant constant $$y$$ such that $$a=\frac{y}{b}$$.

So if $$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=\frac{y}{b}$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is inversely proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{y}{a}$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets smaller).

As for the question:
In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

Given: $$p=ex$$ and $$e=iy$$ (for some constants $$x$$ and $$y$$), so $$p=ixy$$. Question: $$p=70xy=?$$ So, basically we should find the value of $$xy$$.

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60 --> as $$e=iy$$ then $$0.5=60y$$ --> we can find the value of $$y$$, but still not sufficient.
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50 --> as $$p=ixy$$ then $$2=50xy$$ --> we can find the value of $$xy$$. Sufficient.

Hope it's clear.

Hi Bunuel,

When you break it down like that, it makes complete sense but I made the following error. Can you please clarify why this isn't true?

$$\frac{p}{e}$$ = $$\frac{e}{i}$$

$$\frac{p}{.5}$$ = $$\frac{.5}{60}$$ and solve for p. If the ratios are proportional, shouldn't .5/60 give me a relationship for p/e since I already know E? This led me to choose "D" as the answer choice.

Thanks
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 35912
Followers: 6851

Kudos [?]: 90026 [0], given: 10402

### Show Tags

25 May 2014, 09:56
russ9 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

$$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger too, so there is some non-zero constant $$x$$ such that $$a=xb$$;

So if $$a$$ is directly proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=xb$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is directly proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{1}{x}*a$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger too).

$$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ means that as the absolute value of $$b$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$a$$ gets smaller, so there is some non-zero constant constant $$y$$ such that $$a=\frac{y}{b}$$.

So if $$a$$ is inversely proportional to $$b$$ ($$a=\frac{y}{b}$$), then vise-versa is also correct: $$b$$ is inversely proportional to $$a$$ ($$b=\frac{y}{a}$$ as the absolute value of $$a$$ gets bigger, the absolute value of $$b$$ gets smaller).

As for the question:
In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

Given: $$p=ex$$ and $$e=iy$$ (for some constants $$x$$ and $$y$$), so $$p=ixy$$. Question: $$p=70xy=?$$ So, basically we should find the value of $$xy$$.

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60 --> as $$e=iy$$ then $$0.5=60y$$ --> we can find the value of $$y$$, but still not sufficient.
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50 --> as $$p=ixy$$ then $$2=50xy$$ --> we can find the value of $$xy$$. Sufficient.

Hope it's clear.

Hi Bunuel,

When you break it down like that, it makes complete sense but I made the following error. Can you please clarify why this isn't true?

$$\frac{p}{e}$$ = $$\frac{e}{i}$$

$$\frac{p}{.5}$$ = $$\frac{.5}{60}$$ and solve for p. If the ratios are proportional, shouldn't .5/60 give me a relationship for p/e since I already know E? This led me to choose "D" as the answer choice.

Thanks

Directly proportional means that as one amount increases, another amount increases at the same rate.

We are told that p is directly proportional to e and e is directly proportional to i. But it does NOT mean that the rate of increase, constant of proportionality, (x in my solution) for p and e is the same as the rate of increase, constant of proportionality, (y in my solution) for e and i.

Or simply put, we have that $$\frac{p}{e}=x$$ and $$\frac{e}{i}=y$$ but we cannot say whether x=y, so we cannot say whether $$\frac{p}{e}=\frac{e}{i}$$.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 608
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 200

### Show Tags

25 May 2015, 01:55
P/70 ?

1) We have no onformation about P - Not sufficient
2) P/70 = 2/50 --> P=2,8 (B)
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 23
GPA: 3.55
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 02:32
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e,
implies p = ke (k is the constant of proportionality)

e is in turn directly proportional to investment i

implies e = mi (m is the constant of proportionality. Note here that I haven't taken the constant of proportionality as k here since the constant above and this constant could be different)

Then, p = kmi (km is the constant of proportionality here. It doesn't matter that we depict it using two variables. It is still just a number)

e.g. if p = 2e and e = 3i
p = 6i will be the relation. 6 being the constant of proportionality.

So if you have i and need p, you either need this constant directly (as you can find from statement 2) or you need both k and m (statement 1 only gives you m).

Hi Karishma,

If I were to follow the solution for your post on joint variations in this blog http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/02 ... mment-5837,

I would arrive with the solution:
p/e = k and e/i = k
hence, pi/e = k is the joint variation.

Why does this problem differ?

Thanks
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7072
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2086

Kudos [?]: 13291 [2] , given: 222

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 20:27
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
francoimps wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e,
implies p = ke (k is the constant of proportionality)

e is in turn directly proportional to investment i

implies e = mi (m is the constant of proportionality. Note here that I haven't taken the constant of proportionality as k here since the constant above and this constant could be different)

Then, p = kmi (km is the constant of proportionality here. It doesn't matter that we depict it using two variables. It is still just a number)

e.g. if p = 2e and e = 3i
p = 6i will be the relation. 6 being the constant of proportionality.

So if you have i and need p, you either need this constant directly (as you can find from statement 2) or you need both k and m (statement 1 only gives you m).

Hi Karishma,

If I were to follow the solution for your post on joint variations in this blog http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/02 ... mment-5837,

I would arrive with the solution:
p/e = k and e/i = k
hence, pi/e = k is the joint variation.

Why does this problem differ?

Thanks

Joint variation gives you the relation between 2 quantities keeping the third (or more) constant.
p will vary inversely with i if and only if e is kept constant.

Think of it this way, if p increases, e increases. But we need to keep e constant, we will have to decrease i to decrease e back to original value. So an increase in p leads to a decrease in i to keep e constant.
But if we don't have to keep e constant, an increase in p will lead to an increase in e which will increase i.

Here, we are not given that e needs to be kept constant. So we will not use the joint variation approach.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 25 May 2014 Posts: 23 GPA: 3.55 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 13 Re: In a certain business, production index p is directly [#permalink] ### Show Tags 10 Jun 2015, 20:43 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: Joint variation gives you the relation between 2 quantities keeping the third (or more) constant. p will vary inversely with i if and only if e is kept constant. Think of it this way, if p increases, e increases. But we need to keep e constant, we will have to decrease i to decrease e back to original value. So an increase in p leads to a decrease in i to keep e constant. But if we don't have to keep e constant, an increase in p will lead to an increase in e which will increase i. Here, we are not given that e needs to be kept constant. So we will not use the joint variation approach. Hi Karishma, Thanks for your reply. How will I know whether the question asks that a certain variable needs to be kept constant? The question above, "In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?" seems similar to the question on your blog post, "x varies directly with y and y varies inversely with z." What should I explicitly look for to determine whether the issue is joint variation or not? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7072 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2086 Kudos [?]: 13291 [1] , given: 222 Re: In a certain business, production index p is directly [#permalink] ### Show Tags 10 Jun 2015, 22:10 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post 1 This post was BOOKMARKED francoimps wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: Joint variation gives you the relation between 2 quantities keeping the third (or more) constant. p will vary inversely with i if and only if e is kept constant. Think of it this way, if p increases, e increases. But we need to keep e constant, we will have to decrease i to decrease e back to original value. So an increase in p leads to a decrease in i to keep e constant. But if we don't have to keep e constant, an increase in p will lead to an increase in e which will increase i. Here, we are not given that e needs to be kept constant. So we will not use the joint variation approach. Hi Karishma, Thanks for your reply. How will I know whether the question asks that a certain variable needs to be kept constant? The question above, "In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?" seems similar to the question on your blog post, "x varies directly with y and y varies inversely with z." What should I explicitly look for to determine whether the issue is joint variation or not? It will be told that the third variable has to be kept constant. Note how the independent question is framed in my post: The rate of a certain chemical reaction is directly proportional to the square of the concentration of chemical M present and inversely proportional to the concentration of chemical N present. If the concentration of chemical N is increased by 100 percent, which of the following is closest to the percent change in the concentration of chemical M required to keep the reaction rate unchanged? You need relation between N and M when reaction rate is constant. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2013
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 141

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2015, 06:01
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e,
implies p = ke (k is the constant of proportionality)

e is in turn directly proportional to investment i

implies e = mi (m is the constant of proportionality. Note here that I haven't taken the constant of proportionality as k here since the constant above and this constant could be different)

Then, p = kmi (km is the constant of proportionality here. It doesn't matter that we depict it using two variables. It is still just a number)

e.g. if p = 2e and e = 3i
p = 6i will be the relation. 6 being the constant of proportionality.

So if you have i and need p, you either need this constant directly (as you can find from statement 2) or you need both k and m (statement 1 only gives you m).

Hi Krishna/Bunuel,

Can you explain why the constant k could be different? I took constant k for both the proportionalities and marked answer D.
_________________

Kindly support by giving Kudos, if my post helped you!

Optimus Prep Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1738
Followers: 50

Kudos [?]: 378 [0], given: 21

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2016, 20:51
Superhuman wrote:
This topic is locked. If you want to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum.

In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50

Given: p = c1*e - (i) where c1 is a constant
and e = c2*i - (ii) where c2 is a constant

Required: p = ? when i = 70
p = c1*e = c1*c2*i
p = c1*c2*70 - (iii)
Hence we need to find the value of c1 and c2

Statement 1: e=0.5 whenever i=60
From (ii),
0.5 = c2*60
Clearly we cannot solve for c1
INSUFFICIENT

Statement 2: p=2.0 whenever i=50
From (i),
2 = c1*50
and we know that
p = c1*70

Dividing both the equations,
2/p = 50/70
Hence we can solve for p
SUFFICIENT

Correct Option: B
_________________

# Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: $80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring GMAT On Demand Course$299
Free Online Trial Hour

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7072
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2086

Kudos [?]: 13291 [1] , given: 222

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2016, 22:29
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
harishbiyani8888 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
gettinit wrote:
Would p be directly proportional to i as well if e is proportional to p? I am thinking it should be, however the constant proportion will be different between p and e and e and i and thus entirely separate between p and i? thanks.

production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e,
implies p = ke (k is the constant of proportionality)

e is in turn directly proportional to investment i

implies e = mi (m is the constant of proportionality. Note here that I haven't taken the constant of proportionality as k here since the constant above and this constant could be different)

Then, p = kmi (km is the constant of proportionality here. It doesn't matter that we depict it using two variables. It is still just a number)

e.g. if p = 2e and e = 3i
p = 6i will be the relation. 6 being the constant of proportionality.

So if you have i and need p, you either need this constant directly (as you can find from statement 2) or you need both k and m (statement 1 only gives you m).

Hi Krishna/Bunuel,

Can you explain why the constant k could be different? I took constant k for both the proportionalities and marked answer D.

Let me ask you the flip question: why do you think both constants would have the same value?

"In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e," - say, p = 2e so when e doubles, p becomes four times etc

"e is in turn directly proportional to investment i." - Now how does this imply that e = 2i? We could very well have e = 3i or e = i/2 etc

We are not given that whatever the relation is between p and e, the relation has to be the same between e and i too.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 656
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Followers: 45

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 36

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2016, 22:16
Superhuman wrote:
This topic is locked. If you want to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum.

In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50

Stimulus tell us that
pei
p=k1*e=k2*i {where k1 and k2 are proportionality constant for e and i respectively }
(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
pk1*0.5k2*60
We do not know what the proportionally constant k1 and k2 are; there is no way to calculate them either.
INSUFFICIENT

(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50
2=k2*50
k2 =2/50
Since we know k2 we can figure out any relation between p and k
SUFFICIENT

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016.

In a certain business, production index p is directly   [#permalink] 01 Aug 2016, 22:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Is the product of a certain pair of integers even? 5 12 May 2014, 11:54
9 Can the positive integer p be expressed as the product of tw 7 15 Jan 2014, 01:53
3 Is the product of 3p and 4 greater than 20? 5 03 Mar 2013, 12:28
Can the positive integer p be expressed as the product of 7 29 Mar 2010, 01:23
15 Can the positive integer p be expressed as the product of 26 27 Dec 2009, 04:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In a certain business, production index p is directly

 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®.