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:
First, given the figure, how could we know that a c d is on a lign? I thought if that information is not given, we cannot suppose it. Tha's why I answered (E). The information give is just that a c b is a triangle...
Second point, I've learn in different GMAT DS tips, that for variables to be solved, there needs to be at least as much as equations as unknown. It doesn't seem to work if we consider following
So with (1) we have:
a+b+c=180
c+d =180
a + c + d = 225
4 variables and 3 equations are not enough to solve it => right
with (2)
a+b+c=180
c+d =180
a-d=55
It 's the same, we have 4 variables and 3 equations => false
why can't we say it isn't enough to solve it. Where's the flaw?
First, given the figure, how could we know that a c d is on a lign? I thought if that information is not given, we cannot suppose it. Tha's why I answered (E). The information give is just that a c b is a triangle...
Second point, I've learn in different GMAT DS tips, that for variables to be solved, there needs to be at least as much as equations as unknown. It doesn't seem to work if we consider following
So with (1) we have: a+b+c=180 c+d =180 a + c + d = 225
4 variables and 3 equations are not enough to solve it => right
with (2) a+b+c=180 c+d =180 a-d=55
It 's the same, we have 4 variables and 3 equations => false
why can't we say it isn't enough to solve it. Where's the flaw?
First, given the figure, how could we know that a c d is on a lign? I thought if that information is not given, we cannot suppose it. Tha's why I answered (E). The information give is just that a c b is a triangle...
- I think you can assume a line is straight if it's drawn straight. I can't recall the exact things you cannot assume in geometry as it's been a long time since I touched geometry. But I think the OG has a list of those items you can safely assume
Second point, I've learn in different GMAT DS tips, that for variables to be solved, there needs to be at least as much as equations as unknown. It doesn't seem to work if we consider following
- You're wrong on this one. In fact, for DS, having x number of variables does not mean you need x number of equations.
Anyway, for St1: we know c+d = 180, and so a = 45. However, we can't solve for b as we do not know c and we can't manipulate the variables to fit into the sum of angles for a triangle.
The most we can get via manipulation is
a+b+c = 180 45+b+180-d = 180 b-d = -45 --> We still have two variables left.
However, with St 2:
You can easily write d = a+55 So c = 180-a-55 = 125-a
Thanks Ywilfred for your explanation.
Concerning the solving of the equations (1) and (2), I totally understand and agree. But I was looking for a "shortcut" to answer such questions more quickly. If I knew after few seconds that in any DS involving equations that there have less or as much equations as variables, I could straight give an answer that we have( or not) enough information too answer.
So what should one think about such a statement taken out of Kaplan, in light of this DS triangle problem.
"Remember this matematical principle.Whatever number of different variables you need to solve for, you will need that same number of different equations relating at least one of those variables.
There are usually a few tough DS problems that can be made easy by applying this principle and the Kaplan Method for DS word problem. If you get such a problem, ask yoursel,' how many variables do I need to solve for? How many equations do I have?'"