Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 04 Dec 2013, 16:59

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent

Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 1

Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent [#permalink]  11 Dec 2007, 14:22
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (low)

Question Stats:

71% (02:07) correct 28% (01:11) wrong based on 71 sessions
Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent greater in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of p?

(1) In 1995 Karen's salary was $2,000 greater than Jason's. (2) In 1998 Karen's salary was$2,440 greater than Jason's.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 15058
Followers: 2516

Kudos [?]: 15430 [2] , given: 1550

Re: jason's salary & karen's salary [#permalink]  02 Nov 2010, 06:25
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
anilnandyala wrote:
jason's salary & karen's salary were each P percent greater in 1998 then in 1995 what is the value of
P?

a in 1995 karen's salary was $2000 greater then jason's b in 1998 karen's salary was$2400 greater then jason's

Given: j_2=j_1(1+\frac{p}{100}) and k_2=k_1(1+\frac{p}{100}). Qurestion: p=?

(1) k_1-j_1=2,000. Not sufficient to calculate p.
(2) k_2-j_2=2440. Not sufficient to calculate p.

(1)+(2) k_2-j_2=2440=k_1(1+\frac{p}{100})-j_1(1+\frac{p}{100}) --> 2440=k_1(1+\frac{p}{100})-j_1(1+\frac{p}{100})=(1+\frac{p}{100})(k_1-j_1)=(1+\frac{p}{100})2,000 --> 2440=(1+\frac{p}{100})2,000. Sufficient to to calculate p.

Or another way: difference between their salaries increased by 2440-2000=440, which is 440/2000*100=22%, but difference increases proportionally with the salaries, so increase in salary is also 22%.

_________________
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 869
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 168 [1] , given: 0

1
KUDOS
Answer is C. Right off the bat without doing any math.

Taken separately we don't know anything.

Taken together...

We know that their salaries grew further apart by $440. They started off in 1995 as$2,000 apart. That means the $440 increase must have come from the$2,000 difference.

440/2000 = P

(using a calculator to prove it)

440/2000 = 22% (or 2,440/2000 = 1.22)

10,000(1.22) = 12,200
12,000(1.22) = 14, 640
14,640-12,200 = 2,440

50,000(1.22) = 61,000
52,000(1.22) = 63,440
63,440-61,000 = 2,440

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.

C it is.
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 869
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 168 [1] , given: 0

1
KUDOS
Not at all.

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. CEO Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2510 Followers: 44 Kudos [?]: 422 [1] , given: 19 Re: DS: Percentage Salary Increase [#permalink] 12 Dec 2007, 20:32 1 This post received KUDOS tarek99 wrote: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent greater in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of p? (1) In 1995 Karen's salary was$2,000 greater than Jason's.
(2) In 1998 Karen's salary was $2,440 greater than Jason's. Please explain your answer 1995: Janson's salary = j Karen's salary = k 1998: Janson's salary = j (1+p) Karen's salary = k (1+p) 1: in 1995, k = j + 2000 2: in 1998, k(1+p) = j (1+p) + 2440 togather: k(1+p) = j (1+p) + 2440 (j + 2000) (1+p) = j (1+p) + 2440 2000 + 2000p = 2440 p = (2440 - 2000)/2000 p = 22% VP Status: There is always something new !! Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 1372 Followers: 9 Kudos [?]: 109 [1] , given: 10 Re: Janson salary [#permalink] 03 May 2011, 09:12 1 This post received KUDOS let salaries at 95 be K and J each. salaries in 98 will be p*k and p*j each. Considering p as percentage value. in 95, k-j = 2000 in 98, p(k-j) = 2440 thus p's value can be found using these equations. Hence C. _________________ Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/ Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !! Senior Manager Joined: 24 Mar 2011 Posts: 470 Location: Texas Followers: 4 Kudos [?]: 40 [1] , given: 20 Re: Janson salary [#permalink] 03 May 2011, 09:15 1 This post received KUDOS udaymathapati wrote: Attachment: M-Q29.JPG Note that both of their salary increase by same p percent. In 1995 let jason's and karen's salary be j and k resp. And in 1998, let that be j1 and k1. j1 = pj k1 = pk St 1 --> in 1995, k = j+2000 Not sufficient doesn't provide any info about 1998 year. St 2--> in 1998, k1 = j1+2440 Not sufficient doesn't provide any info about 1995 year. Both together, solve the equations - k1 = pk j1+2440 = p(j+2000) j1+2440 = j1+p2000 --> p = 12.2 Answer is C Intern Joined: 25 Nov 2007 Posts: 40 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0 Re: DS: Percentage Salary Increase [#permalink] 11 Dec 2007, 15:19 tarek99 wrote: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent greater in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of p? (1) In 1995 Karen's salary was$2,000 greater than Jason's.

(2) In 1998 Karen's salary was $2,440 greater than Jason's. Please explain your answer A insufficient B Insufficient Combining From A, In 1995 Janson's salary = J Karen's salary = J+2000 In 1998 Janson's salary = J*0.p + J Karen's salary = ((J+2000) * 0.p) + (J +2000) Also, from B ((J+2000) * 0.p) + (J +2000) = (J*0.p + J) +2440 2000*0.p=440 Ans C Whats the OA Manager Joined: 04 Nov 2007 Posts: 52 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0 [#permalink] 11 Dec 2007, 15:39 I get E. A, Alone: K = J + 2000. Insuff B alone: K (1 +P/100) = J(1 + P/100) + 2440. Insuff. Together, we have three unknowns and two equations, we can't solve the equations. We must know at least one of either Janson's or Karen's salary in 1995 in order to solve for P. Director Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 869 Followers: 10 Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 0 [#permalink] 11 Dec 2007, 16:09 tnguyen707 wrote: eschn3am wrote: Not at all. 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

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.
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 1

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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 3728
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 801

Kudos [?]: 3163 [0], given: 136

Re: jason's salary & karen's salary [#permalink]  02 Nov 2010, 16:59
Expert's post
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
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options. Veritas Prep Reviews SVP Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 1694 Location: United States (IN) Concentration: Strategy, Technology Followers: 26 Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 35 Re: jason's salary & karen's salary [#permalink] 03 May 2011, 20:42 J = (1+p/100)j K = (1+p/100)k (1) k = j + 2000 Not sufficient (2) K = J + 2440 Not Sufficient (1) + (2) J/K = j/k 1 - 2440/K = 1 - 2000/k => K/k = 2440/2000 Substituting this in above equation 2440/2000 = (1 + p)/100 Answer - C _________________ Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant) Manager Status: Tougher times ... Joined: 04 Nov 2012 Posts: 56 Location: India GMAT 1: 480 Q32 V25 WE: General Management (Manufacturing) Followers: 2 Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 44 Percents : Jason's salary and karen's salary were P % [#permalink] 23 Apr 2013, 01:02 Jason's salary and karen's salary were each P% greater than in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of P ? a. In 1995 Karen's salary was$2000 greater than Jason's
b. In 1998 karen's salary was $2440 greater than Jason's _________________ Kabilan.K Kudos is a boost to participate actively and contribute more to the forum Last edited by kabilank87 on 23 Apr 2013, 01:24, edited 1 time in total. Manager Joined: 26 Feb 2013 Posts: 54 Concentration: Strategy, General Management GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30 WE: Consulting (Telecommunications) Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 16 Re: Percents : Jason's salary and karen's salary were P % [#permalink] 23 Apr 2013, 03:38 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. Hope its clear. Math Expert Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 15058 Followers: 2516 Kudos [?]: 15430 [0], given: 1550 Re: Percents : Jason's salary and karen's salary were P % [#permalink] 23 Apr 2013, 04:24 Expert's post kabilank87 wrote: Jason's salary and karen's salary were each P% greater than in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of P ? a. In 1995 Karen's salary was$2000 greater than Jason's
b. In 1998 karen's salary was $2440 greater than Jason's Merging similar topics. _________________ Manager Joined: 09 Apr 2013 Posts: 187 Location: United States Concentration: Finance, Economics GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44 GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44 GPA: 3.1 WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage) Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 34 Re: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent [#permalink] 23 Apr 2013, 15:15 Look at it like it's a rate problem between two separate objects. Manager Joined: 07 May 2012 Posts: 77 Location: United States Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 22 Re: Janson salary [#permalink] 12 May 2013, 06:31 amit2k9 wrote: let salaries at 95 be K and J each. salaries in 98 will be p*k and p*j each. Considering p as percentage value. in 95, k-j = 2000 in 98, p(k-j) = 2440 thus p's value can be found using these equations. Hence C. Slight correction - it is not p(k-j) =2440 , but rather is (1+p/100) ( k-j)=2440. Intern Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 7 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0 Re: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent [#permalink] 13 May 2013, 12:03 In DS questions you can simply test whether you can find a percentage change from a percent change in differing values by picking values. Say: A = 200 B = 100 Difference is 100. Increase values by 10%: A = 220 B = 110 Difference: 110. 110 is a 10% increase from the original difference, so this will also hold for the original values in the question stem. C Intern Joined: 05 Mar 2013 Posts: 48 Location: India Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing GMAT Date: 06-05-2013 GPA: 3.2 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 14 Re: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent [#permalink] 13 May 2013, 21:23 tarek99 wrote: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent greater in 1998 than in 1995. What is the value of p? (1) In 1995 Karen's salary was$2,000 greater than Jason's.
(2) In 1998 Karen's salary was \$2,440 greater than Jason's.

1995 1998

J J + J(p/100)

K K + K(p/100)

p = ?

statement 2:- (K-J) + p/100(K-J) = 2440 B alone not sufficient as we don't have K-J

Combine 1 and 2 we have value of k-j so suffcient answer is C
_________________

"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.

Re: Janson's salary and Karen's salary were each p percent   [#permalink] 13 May 2013, 21:23
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Of the staff members of a certain company, 64 percent salary 2 29 Nov 2004, 15:02
At a certain company each employee has a salary grade s that 4 05 Dec 2004, 14:13
Jason s salary and Karen s salary was each p% grater in 1998 3 12 Nov 2006, 07:34
Salaries? 0 14 Mar 2010, 12:11
1 jasons salary and karen salary were each p percent greater 3 19 Oct 2010, 00:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by