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:

Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? (Figure not necessarily drawn to scale.)

According to the OG an isosceles triangle has at least two sides of the same length.

a + b + c =180°

(1) 180° − (a + c) = 60° --> a + c =120° --> b = 60°. Now, if a = b = c = 60°, then the triangle is isosceles (equilateral) but if a = 100°, b = 60° and c = 20°, then the triangle is NOT isosceles. Not sufficient.

(2) a = 2b − c --> a + c =2b --> 2b + b = 180° --> b = 60°. The same as above. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Both statements provide with the same infor. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Notice that if we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D.
_________________

Re: Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Aug 2013, 05:08

Bunuel wrote:

Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? (Figure not necessarily drawn to scale.)

According to the OG an isosceles triangle has at least two sides of the same length.

a + b + c =180°

(1) 180° − (a + c) = 60° --> a + c =120° --> b = 60°. Now, if a = b = c = 60°, then the triangle is isosceles (equilateral) but if a = 100°, b = 60° and c = 20°, then the triangle is NOT isosceles. Not sufficient.

(2) a = 2b − c --> a + c =2b --> 2b + b = 180° --> b = 60°. The same as above. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Both statements provide with the same infor. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Notice that if we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D.

Why would the answer be D in that case Bunuel? None of the statements would be able to tell us the exact values for C or A. we would just know their sum to be 180....please point out the problem in my assumptions....

Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? (Figure not necessarily drawn to scale.)

According to the OG an isosceles triangle has at least two sides of the same length.

a + b + c =180°

(1) 180° − (a + c) = 60° --> a + c =120° --> b = 60°. Now, if a = b = c = 60°, then the triangle is isosceles (equilateral) but if a = 100°, b = 60° and c = 20°, then the triangle is NOT isosceles. Not sufficient.

(2) a = 2b − c --> a + c =2b --> 2b + b = 180° --> b = 60°. The same as above. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Both statements provide with the same infor. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Notice that if we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D.

Why would the answer be D in that case Bunuel? None of the statements would be able to tell us the exact values for C or A. we would just know their sum to be 180....please point out the problem in my assumptions....

Ask yourself: do we need the angles to answer YES or NO to the question.
_________________

Re: Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Aug 2013, 10:21

Bunuel wrote:

avaneeshvyas wrote:

Bunuel wrote:

Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? (Figure not necessarily drawn to scale.)

According to the OG an isosceles triangle has at least two sides of the same length.

a + b + c =180°

(1) 180° − (a + c) = 60° --> a + c =120° --> b = 60°. Now, if a = b = c = 60°, then the triangle is isosceles (equilateral) but if a = 100°, b = 60° and c = 20°, then the triangle is NOT isosceles. Not sufficient.

(2) a = 2b − c --> a + c =2b --> 2b + b = 180° --> b = 60°. The same as above. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Both statements provide with the same infor. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Notice that if we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D.

Why would the answer be D in that case Bunuel? None of the statements would be able to tell us the exact values for C or A. we would just know their sum to be 180....please point out the problem in my assumptions....

Ask yourself: do we need the angles to answer YES or NO to the question.

I am sorry but I seem to miss something here.....to identify a triangle as an isosceles one, we either need to prove two sides equal or the opposite angles equal.....if yes then we do need the measure of individual angles

Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? (Figure not necessarily drawn to scale.)

According to the OG an isosceles triangle has at least two sides of the same length.

a + b + c =180°

(1) 180° − (a + c) = 60° --> a + c =120° --> b = 60°. Now, if a = b = c = 60°, then the triangle is isosceles (equilateral) but if a = 100°, b = 60° and c = 20°, then the triangle is NOT isosceles. Not sufficient.

(2) a = 2b − c --> a + c =2b --> 2b + b = 180° --> b = 60°. The same as above. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Both statements provide with the same infor. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Notice that if we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D.

Why would the answer be D in that case Bunuel? None of the statements would be able to tell us the exact values for C or A. we would just know their sum to be 180....please point out the problem in my assumptions....

Ask yourself: do we need the angles to answer YES or NO to the question.

I am sorry but I seem to miss something here.....to identify a triangle as an isosceles one, we either need to prove two sides equal or the opposite angles equal.....if yes then we do need the measure of individual angles

If we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D, because from a + c =120° (b = 60°) we cannot have only two angles equal to each other, so the answer is NO the triangle is NOT isosceles.
_________________

Re: Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 May 2014, 11:30

Bunuel wrote:

If we define an isosceles triangle as a triangle with exactly two equal sides (not the case for the GMAT) then the answer will be D, because from a + c =120° (b = 60°) we cannot have only two angles equal to each other, so the answer is NO the triangle is NOT isosceles.

Right: The possibilities are either that 1) all the angles are 60 degrees, in which case the triangle is equilateral (which, according to the GMAT is also isosceles), or 2) all the angles are different, which is definitely not isosceles. With the GMAT definition, the OA should be E, but if we use the definition that isosceles triangles have EXACTLY TWO congruent sides, then either answer is sufficient to say NO.

Re: Is the triangle depicted above isosceles? [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Oct 2016, 00:10

Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

Happy New Year everyone! Before I get started on this post, and well, restarted on this blog in general, I wanted to mention something. For the past several months...

It’s quickly approaching two years since I last wrote anything on this blog. A lot has happened since then. When I last posted, I had just gotten back from...

Happy 2017! Here is another update, 7 months later. With this pace I might add only one more post before the end of the GSB! However, I promised that...