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.

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:

If Jim saved a total of $90 in 3 weeks, how much did he save in week 2?

(1) Jim's average savings for the first 2 weeks were $20 (2) Jim's first week's savings were half of his savings in week 2 and a third of his savings in week 3

Let's suppose , S1 , S2 and S3 are the amounts Jim saved for the first, second, and third week correspondingly.

From statement (1) we have that S1 + S2 = 120, but the question says that S1 + S2 + S3 = 180, so S3 = -40; he lost $40 during the third week.

From the statement (2) we can construct system of equations: S1 + S2 + S3 = 80 2S1 - S2 = 0 3S1 - S3 = 0 How was above two equations written using the statement ?Subtracting second equation from the third gives us

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
19 Sep 2008, 03:09

1

This post received KUDOS

Frm (2) let the savings for three weeks be x, 2x, 3x Then x+2x+3x= total savings=80 x can be found hence saving for second week can also be found Ans: B

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
21 Sep 2008, 09:35

I believe the first statement is meaningles. IMO saving must be positive whereas just like he mentioned it comes out to be negative ? Should be corrected.

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
18 Oct 2008, 13:40

2

This post received KUDOS

The answer and explanation are correct, I solved it via S2, same as ritula, sum of the parts, x = 13 1/3, 2x = 26 2/3.

But S1 then contradicts S2. As I understand it, that's not supposed to be possible on a DS question. S1 can be insufficient, but it can't be wrong. In this case it's wrong.

If S1 stated that the average for the first 2 weeks was $20, this would be reconciled (and the answer stays the same).

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
23 Oct 2008, 05:51

Thanks, we'll edit the question. It indeed has a typo. +1

scorcho wrote:

The answer and explanation are correct, I solved it via S2, same as ritula, sum of the parts, x = 13 1/3, 2x = 26 2/3.

But S1 then contradicts S2. As I understand it, that's not supposed to be possible on a DS question. S1 can be insufficient, but it can't be wrong. In this case it's wrong.

If S1 stated that the average for the first 2 weeks was $20, this would be reconciled (and the answer stays the same).

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
31 Oct 2008, 08:36

dzyubam wrote:

Thanks, we'll edit the question. It indeed has a typo. +1

scorcho wrote:

The answer and explanation are correct, I solved it via S2, same as ritula, sum of the parts, x = 13 1/3, 2x = 26 2/3.

But S1 then contradicts S2. As I understand it, that's not supposed to be possible on a DS question. S1 can be insufficient, but it can't be wrong. In this case it's wrong.

If S1 stated that the average for the first 2 weeks was $20, this would be reconciled (and the answer stays the same).

Yeah, thats necessary to make the question worthful.

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
01 Nov 2008, 11:14

ugimba wrote:

GMATTIGER, can you explain a bit more? are you saying that is correct(usning 'and' in statement 2 instead of an 'or') or wrong? any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

According to the question:

From statement 1: (w1 + w2)/2 = 60 w1 + w2 = 120

Since the question says that saving in 3 weeks is 80, how is it possible to 120 savings in 2 weeks. Ok, The question might assume that there is a negative savings of $40 in w3. Ok agreed.

From statement 2: w1 = w2/2 = w3/3 so w2 = 2w1 and w3 = 3w1 w1 + w2 + w3 = 80

Since w1+w2+w3 = 80, and w1+w2 = 120, it cannot be true that w3 = 3w1 because w3 saving is -ve and w1 is +ve.. Therefore the assumptions are self contradictory. However, I am sure "dzyubam" might have already changed the question as required.

Quote:

Jim has saved $80 in 3 weeks. How much did he save in Week 2?

1. Average savings for the first 2 weeks are $60 2. First week savings are half of what he saved in week 2 and a third of what he saved in week 3

the next # after 324,700 to have tens digit 2 and units digit 1 is 324721, the one after that is: 324821, 324921, etc. So we see here that # w/tens digit 2 and units digit 1 comes every 100 #s. So to get the answer, we find out how many 100 #s are there btw 458,600 and 324,700: (458,600-324,700)/100=1338, 1338+1=1339 to be inclusive. So the answer is A: 1339

the next # after 324,700 to have tens digit 2 and units digit 1 is 324721, the one after that is: 324821, 324921, etc. So we see here that # w/tens digit 2 and units digit 1 comes every 100 #s. So to get the answer, we find out how many 100 #s are there btw 458,600 and 324,700: (458,600-324,700)/100=1338, 1338+1=1339 to be inclusive. So the answer is A: 1339

small correction..

](458,600-324,700)/100=1339 that's the answer.. why are you adding 1 _________________

Your attitude determines your altitude Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
12 Jul 2011, 06:56

itiskavikatha wrote:

If Jim saved a total of $90 in 3 weeks, how much did he save in week 2?

1. Jim's average savings for the first 2 weeks were $20 2. Jim's first week's savings were half of his savings in week 2 and a third of his savings in week 3

Re: m01 - Q 20 explaination not clear pls put some light [#permalink]
16 Jul 2012, 04:26

1

This post received KUDOS

Here's my logic to this question:

1) He could have saved $10 in week 1 and $30 in week 2 and you get an average of $20 OR he could have saved $20 in both week 1 and 2 and that gives you an average of $20. Clearly Not sufficient

2) You get only one value for this. Week 2= $30... Week 1= $15.... Week 3= $45 All 3 weeks equal $90. Try to plug in other values and it doesn't work.

1) First statement only give the average of the first two weeks. May be there was no income in the first or second week. Incomplete information.

2) you can create a equation to solve with this information 1/2x + x + 3(1/2x) = 90 (You don't have to solve, just create an equation to establish relationship)

Ans : B ( 2nd statement is sufficient to ans., but not 1st)

If Jim saved a total of $90 in 3 weeks, how much did he save in week 2?

(1) Jim's average savings for the first 2 weeks were $20 (2) Jim's first week's savings were half of his savings in week 2 and a third of his savings in week 3

Note that: on the GMAT, two data sufficiency statements always provide TRUE information and these statements never contradict each other.

But for this question, from the first statement we get that the total savings for the first 2 weeks were $40 and from the second statement we get that the total savings for the first 2 weeks were $15+$30=$45, so the statements clearly contradict each other.

Revised question reads:

If Jim saved a total of $90 in 3 weeks, how much did he save in week 2?

Say S_1, S_2, and S_3 are the amounts Jim saved for the first, second, and third week, respectively.

(1) Jim's average savings for the first 2 weeks were $22.5. Given: S_1+S_2=2*22.5=45, not sufficient to get the value of S_2.

(2) Jim's first week's savings were half of his savings in week 2 and a third of his savings in week 3. Given: 2*S_1=S_2 and 3*S_1=S_3. Since, also given that S_1+S_2+S_3=90, then S_1+2*S_1+3*S_1=90, which gives S_1=15. Therefore S_2=2*S_1=30. Sufficient..