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:

K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K. Is 100 in K? (1) 50 is in K. (2) 150 is in K.

(1) 50 is in K --> integers more than or equal to 50 are in the set K, so 100 is in the K. Sufficient.

(2) 150 is in K --> integers more than or equal to 150 are in the set K, so 100 may or may not be in the K (if the source integer is 100 or less then 100 is in K but if the source integer is more than 100 then 100 is not in K). Not sufficient.

questions such as the one above never mention the total number of terms in the set , wouldnt that matter , say if the set were to contain only 10 integers or say 50 , the answer to the question might change ....?

questions such as the one above never mention the total number of terms in the set , wouldnt that matter , say if the set were to contain only 10 integers or say 50 , the answer to the question might change ....?

Not really, because the way the set is defined, it will always be either the empty set or an infinite set.

If the set contains any integer, it will have to contain all the integers greater than or equal to that integer. So the question of having exactly 50 or 100 integers never arises
_________________

questions such as the one above never mention the total number of terms in the set , wouldnt that matter , say if the set were to contain only 10 integers or say 50 , the answer to the question might change ....?

Not really, because the way the set is defined, it will always be either the empty set or an infinite set.

If the set contains any integer, it will have to contain all the integers greater than or equal to that integer. So the question of having exactly 50 or 100 integers never arises

Well, that is some valuable information. Thank you and +1.

Guys, would you mind explaining the solution bit more. How can 100 be in set, if 50 is in K. Wouldn't r+1, i.e., 51 should be there? Thanks!

If r is in the set, r+1 will be in it. So if 50 is in the set, 51 will be in it If 51 is in the set, by the same logic, 52 will be in it If 52 is in the set, 53 will be in it .... AND SO ON

So basically what the condition implies is if r is in the set, all the integers greater than r will also have to be in the set. Hence, 50 being in there is sufficient for 100 to be in there. But 150 being in there, is not necessarily sufficient
_________________

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Nov 2013, 05:31

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

We know that if r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.

(1) says that 50 is in K, thus every integer more than 50 is also in K: 51 because 50 is there, 52 because 51 is there, ..., 100 because 99 is there.

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Nov 2013, 10:50

Bunuel wrote:

mumbijoh wrote:

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

We know that if r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.

(1) says that 50 is in K, thus every integer more than 50 is also in K: 51 because 50 is there, 52 because 51 is there, ..., 100 because 99 is there.

Can you explain again why B is insufficient? If 150 is in K, 151, .152... resulting from ( r + 1) also is in K. That means 100 will be out of K because K includes only value > 150. B helps to always answer: NO (100 is always NOT in K: Sufficient).

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

We know that if r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.

(1) says that 50 is in K, thus every integer more than 50 is also in K: 51 because 50 is there, 52 because 51 is there, ..., 100 because 99 is there.

Can you explain again why B is insufficient? If 150 is in K, 151, .152... resulting from ( r + 1) also is in K. That means 100 will be out of K because K includes only value > 150. B helps to always answer: NO (100 is always NOT in K: Sufficient).

Thanks.

I guess you did not follow the links provided...

We don't know which is the source integer in the set, if it's 150, then 100 won't be in the set but if the source integer is say 10 or 20 (basically if the source integer is less than or equal to 100), then 100 will be in the set. So, 100 may or may not be in the set. Consider below two examples of the set:

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2014, 09:49

1

This post received KUDOS

If r is in K, r+1 is in K. So if 50 is in K, 51 is in K. But if 51 is in K, so is 52, and then so is 53, and so on. Indeed, if you know 50 is in K, you know that every positive integer larger than 50 must also be in K. So 1) is sufficient.

If 150 is in K, all we know for certain is that every positive integer greater than or equal to 150 must be in K. We don't know if 100 is in K. So 2) is insufficient.

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2015, 03:01

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.
_________________

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2015, 08:11

Bunuel wrote:

mumbijoh wrote:

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

We know that if r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.

(1) says that 50 is in K, thus every integer more than 50 is also in K: 51 because 50 is there, 52 because 51 is there, ..., 100 because 99 is there.

Hope this helps.

How can the logic be applied to only one statement Assuming if r is in the set the r+1 must be in the set as well. (1) 50 is in the set (1,2,3,4........50) or (10,11,12.......50) or no 100 (50, 51, 52.........100....) yes 100

(2) 150 is in the set (1,2,3,4.......100,101...150) or yes 100 (20,21,22,23.........150) or yes 100 (150, 151, 152.........) no 100

Bunuel, Hi I understood your explanation.However , I think if you were to classify statement 2 as insufficient then statement 1 would also be if 50 is in set the 51,is also in the ,same as 52...... all the way to a hundred. if 150 is in set then 149 must have been part of the set, 148 .. all the way to possibly 0. But following your explanation you mentioned in statement two that there is no way of knowing if 100 was part of the set? Well i agree with you but how are we to know if statement 1 goes all the way to 100? I was thinking that E would have been the answer.no?

We know that if r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.

(1) says that 50 is in K, thus every integer more than 50 is also in K: 51 because 50 is there, 52 because 51 is there, ..., 100 because 99 is there.

Hope this helps.

How can the logic be applied to only one statement Assuming if r is in the set the r+1 must be in the set as well. (1) 50 is in the set (1,2,3,4........50) or (10,11,12.......50) or no 100 (50, 51, 52.........100....) yes 100

(2) 150 is in the set (1,2,3,4.......100,101...150) or yes 100 (20,21,22,23.........150) or yes 100 (150, 151, 152.........) no 100

Re: K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Oct 2016, 05:44

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...

Post-MBA I became very intrigued by how senior leaders navigated their career progression. It was also at this time that I realized I learned nothing about this during my...