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:
No need to do the math on the real test. Just realize that you know how much their salaries started and that if there is any change in the difference it must've come from the original difference in salary.
All we have to do is realize that a $2,000 difference grew to a $2,440 when multiplied by P. This makes for a 22% increase and the information holds true for any two numbers $2,000 apart.
500,000*1.22 = 610,000 502,000*1.22 = 612,440
2,000*1.22 = 2440 4,000*1.22 = 4880
answer is definitely C.
I tested this method, and it works. I still can't visualize it. Oh well, I guess whatever works!
Try thinking of it like this.
We know that in 1995 Karen's salary was $2,000 greater than Jason's
We know that in 1998 Karen's salary was $2,440 greater than Jason's
Between 1995 and 1998 each of their salaries increased by the same percentage (P)
If Jason makes $10,000 and Karen makes $12,000 then we know that Jason's 10K and Karen's first 10K each increased by the same amount. They would be dead even in 1998 if Karen didn't make $2,000 more.
This means that Karen's $2,000 had to increase by $440 (to get to $2,440) all on it's own. So what percentage increase do you need for $2,000 to become $2,440? this is your answer. and that's why you can choose C without doing any math.
I'm not the best with explanations, but I hope this helps somewhat.
OA is C. but the way i saw this, the difference of 440 didn't make any sense to me. I thought C is possible ONLY if the 2 people have the exact same salary from the beginning. but we don't even know that. a 5% increase on a salary of $10 will not yield the same as a salary of $100. that's why i picked E. both could yield different dollar amounts, but both have the same percentage increase. but after looking at the explanation, i guess if this works, then so be it. i never realised you could get to such an answer by only having the gaps between the 2 actually amounts. cool
Since question asks for the comparison between 1995 and 1998 salaries, a quick look at the statements will tell you that neither alone is sufficient. Now the question remains whether together they are sufficient. Let's analyze.
In 1995: J salary - J; K salary - J + 2000
In 1998: (Their salaries are now p% greater) J salary- J + p% of J; K salary- (J + 2000) + p% of (J + 2000)= J + p% of J + 2000 + p% of 2000
Compare the salaries in red. According to second statement, their difference is 2440. So we can say p% of 2000 = 440. On solving, we get p = 22 _________________
Re: Percents : Jason's salary and karen's salary were P % [#permalink]
23 Apr 2013, 04:38
My answer is C In 1995 Jason's salary J. In 1998 it would be (1+p/100)*J In 1995 Karen's salary K. In 1998 it would be (1+p/100)*K Stmt 1 : K= J+2000 in 1995. We dont know about either of their salaries in 1998. Hence insufficient
Stmt 2: (1+p/100)K=(1+p/100)J + 2440. We dont know the values of J and K . Hence insufficient.
combining. let (1+p/100)= a . a*(j+2000) = a*J +2440.
and we can solve for a or (1+p/100) and we can find the value of P.
Re: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent [#permalink]
25 May 2014, 10:57
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. _________________
Check out this awesome article about Anderson on Poets Quants, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/02/uclas-anderson-school-morphs-into-a-friendly-tech-hub/ . Anderson is a great place! Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I...