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

 It is currently 29 Apr 2016, 20:45

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

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

# M18#37

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 160
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2008, 05:18
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
How many distinct prime divisors does a positive integer $$N$$ have?

1. $$2N$$ has one prime divisor
2. $$3N$$ has one prime divisor

Source: GMAT Club Tests - hardest GMAT questions

REVISED VERSION OF THIS QUESTION IS HERE: m18-73725.html#p1222432
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 111
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [2] , given: 0

Re: DS - Gmat challenge [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2008, 05:24
2
KUDOS
(1) 2N has one prime divisor => N = 1 or N = 2 => N can have either 1 or 0 prime factor =>insuff
(2) 3N has one prime divisor => N = 1 or N = 3 => N can have either 1 or 0 prime factor => insuff

(1)& (2) => N = 1 => N has no prime factor => suff hence C
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2008
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: DS - Gmat challenge [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2008, 07:15
to lylya4
I think
2N has one prime divisor => N =$$2^k$$, k>=0
3N has one prime divisor => N =$$3^l$$, l>=0
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2009
Posts: 99
Location: UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 11:23

1. 2 N has one prime divisor
( this doesnt say distinct prime divisor ) . so N doesn't have any prime divisor
so A sufficient

similarly B is sufficient.

_________________

FEB 15 2010 !!

well I would not disturb you after the D-day ..so please !!!

It Will Snow In Green , One Day !!!!

Intern
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [7] , given: 1

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2010, 09:42
7
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ngotuan wrote:
so N doesn't have any prime divisor

The answer is C - you need both pieces of information to know for sure how many prime divisors N has.

My explanation

So for 2N to have 1 prime divisor, then N cannot be any prime number but 2 (because for e.g. 2 * 3 = 6, and 6 has two prime divisors - 2 and 3), nor can it be a composite number that can be broken down into any other prime numbers but 2 (for e.g. 18 can be broken down into 3 * 3 * 2, but 16, can only be broken down into 2 * 2 * 2 *2). Therefore, it doesn't matter what N is, as long as it satisfies these assumptions. So N can be 1, 2, 4, 8, etc... THEREFORE: If N is 1, then N has no prime divisors. But if N is 2, or 4, or 8, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 2. So this is insufficient by itself.

The same applies for 3N having 1 prime divisor, such that, N can be any number as long 3 is the only prime divisor. As such, N can be 1, 3, 9, 27, etc... If N is 1, then it has 0 prime divisors, and if N is 3, or 9, or 27, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 3. So this is insufficient by itself.

However, for 2N AND 3N to only have 1 prime divisor, then N must be equal to 1. Thus, we know N has no prime divisors, because 1 has no prime divisors. Therefore, Both of them together are sufficient.

Hope this helps!
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 591
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 553 [3] , given: 20

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2010, 11:08
3
KUDOS
If 2N has only 1 prime divisor, it could have only been that either:
N has no prime divisor or
N has only digit 2 as a prime divisor/factor.... 2, 4, 8...(i.e 2^n) INSUFFICIENT

By the same toke,
either N has no prime divisor or
N has only digit 3 as a prime divisor/factor....3, 9, 27...(i.e 3^n) INSUFFICIENT

Combining (1) & (2) => 1,2 or 1,3
only digit "1" is common...N has no distinct prime divisor.
Thus, the correct response is C
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Intern
Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [2] , given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2010, 09:16
2
KUDOS
gmatbull wrote:
If 2N has only 1 prime divisor, it could have only been that either:
N has no prime divisor or
N has only digit 2 as a prime divisor/factor.... 2, 4, 8...(i.e 2^n) INSUFFICIENT

By the same toke,
either N has no prime divisor or
N has only digit 3 as a prime divisor/factor....3, 9, 27...(i.e 3^n) INSUFFICIENT

Combining (1) & (2) => 1,2 or 1,3
only digit "1" is common...N has no distinct prime divisor.
Thus, the correct response is C

Thanks.... very clear explanation.
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 22
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

02 May 2011, 06:33
Haha, wow. I tricked myself.

I thought the answer was B, since A had 2*2=4 and 2*1=2 with 2 being the only prime divisor. Only to realize that 3*3 = 9 which also has 2 divisors and therefore cannot be the answer.
_________________

"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."
-Thomas Paine

Intern
Joined: 21 Apr 2011
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 May 2011, 08:28
exbyte wrote:
ngotuan wrote:
so N doesn't have any prime divisor

The answer is C - you need both pieces of information to know for sure how many prime divisors N has.

My explanation

So for 2N to have 1 prime divisor, then N cannot be any prime number but 2 (because for e.g. 2 * 3 = 6, and 6 has two prime divisors - 2 and 3), nor can it be a composite number that can be broken down into any other prime numbers but 2 (for e.g. 18 can be broken down into 3 * 3 * 2, but 16, can only be broken down into 2 * 2 * 2 *2). Therefore, it doesn't matter what N is, as long as it satisfies these assumptions. So N can be 1, 2, 4, 8, etc... THEREFORE: If N is 1, then N has no prime divisors. But if N is 2, or 4, or 8, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 2. So this is insufficient by itself.

The same applies for 3N having 1 prime divisor, such that, N can be any number as long 3 is the only prime divisor. As such, N can be 1, 3, 9, 27, etc... If N is 1, then it has 0 prime divisors, and if N is 3, or 9, or 27, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 3. So this is insufficient by itself.

However, for 2N AND 3N to only have 1 prime divisor, then N must be equal to 1. Thus, we know N has no prime divisors, because 1 has no prime divisors. Therefore, Both of them together are sufficient.

Hope this helps!

Amazingly explained ; Thanks.
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1673
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 36

### Show Tags

03 May 2011, 05:17

(1) says N can have 2 or no prime number as factor.

(2) says N can have 2 or no prime number as factor.

(1) + (2), N does not have any prime number as factor.
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [1] , given: 8

### Show Tags

05 May 2012, 13:30
1
KUDOS
How many distinct prime divisors does a positive integer N have?
Rephrase: What is N?

S1: 2N has one prime divisor
Given 2N has one prime divisor. The prime divisor should be the prime 2.
However, 2N may have one or more non-prime divisors maintaining the fact that 2 is the only prime divisor.
So, 2N may be equal to 2, 4, or multiples of 2.
Thus, N = 1, 2, or other multiples of 2.
So, S1 is not sufficient. Eliminate AD.

S2: 3N has one prime divisor
Given 3N has one prime divisor. The prime divisor should be the prime 3.
However, 3N may have one or more non-prime divisors maintaining the fact that 3 is the only prime divisor.
So, 3N may be equal to 3, 9, or multiples of 3.
Thus, N = 1, 3, or other multiples of 3.
So, S2 is not sufficient. Eliminate B.

Both S1 & S2: N = 1 is common in values of S1 and S2.
Sufficient to answer that N = 1.

Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 May 2012, 05:20
I am also having the same question that Snowingreen has . Can someone explain
Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

16 May 2012, 06:31
At the outset you should ask questions: What is N?

In first statement, 2N consists of one prime divisor. Clearly that prime divisor is 2. So, what are the possible values of N? N can be equal to 1 or 2. (2N) will have one prime divisor only in these two situations. So, N = 1 or 2, which is not sufficient.

Similarly, in second statement, 3N consists of one prime divisor. Clearly that prime divisor is 3. N can be equal to 1 or 3 in this case. (3N) will have one prime divisor (3) only if N = 1 or 3, which is not sufficient.

Both statements: give N = 1 which has no prime divisor. But, what's important is that it gives one clear answer. So, Sufficient. C is correct.

Hope this helps!!
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 May 2012, 09:51
@vshrivastava : I do have a question

You replied that ::

In first statement, 2N consists of one prime divisor. Clearly that prime divisor is 2. So, what are the possible values of N? N can be equal to 1 or 2. (2N) will have one prime divisor only in these two situations. So, N = 1 or 2, which is not sufficient.

My doubt ::
The statement 1 states that 2N has one prime divisor . It does not tell that 2N has one distinct prime divisor
Now taking this into consideration my doubt is even if N=2 => 2N is 4 which means there are 2 prime divisors i.e both the 2's. So if statement 1 has to be true I think 2N=2 and so N has to be 1 and so we can solve the question.

Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [1] , given: 8

### Show Tags

16 May 2012, 15:07
1
KUDOS
@prakarp: I think you are very close. Here is how I'd approach this:

Statement 1 says: (2N) has one prime divisor.
If (2N) has one prime divisor and the prime divisor is 2, then 2 is the distinct prime divisor in this case. However, what's important is the fact that there are no other prime divisors in N. So, possible values of (2N) are 2, 4, 8, and other multiples of 2 ensuring that the distinct prime divisor remains 2. This leaves us with N = 1, 2, 4, and mutiples of 2. Not sufficient.

Applying the similar concept to statement 2, we will get N = 1, 3, 9 and multiples 3. Not Sufficient.

Combining both statements gets us to N equals 1 which has no prime divisor. Sufficient.

If like the answer, please do not forget to click on kudos. Cheers!!
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 32539
Followers: 5625

Kudos [?]: 68239 [1] , given: 9797

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 06:34
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
gameCode wrote:
How many distinct prime divisors does a positive integer $$N$$ have?

1. $$2N$$ has one prime divisor
2. $$3N$$ has one prime divisor

Source: GMAT Club Tests - hardest GMAT questions

Hi this is from Gmat club tests m18 - #37

I did not understand the QA, or rather i am not satisfied with it. Pls help me with the explanation .

Thanks.

BELOW IS REVISED VERSION OF THIS QUESTION:

How many distinct prime divisors does a positive integer $$n$$ have?

(1) $$2n$$ has one distinct prime divisor --> obviously that only prime divisor of $$2n$$ is 2. So, $$2n$$ can be 2, 4, 8, ... Which means that $$n$$ can be 1, 2, 4, ... If $$n=1$$ then it has no prime divisor but if $$n$$ is any other value (2, 4, ...) then it has one prime divisor: 2 itself. Not sufficient.

(2) $$3n$$ has one distinct prime divisor. Basically the same here: the only prime divisor of $$3n$$ must be 3. So, $$3n$$ can be 3, 9, 27, ... Which means that $$n$$ can be 1, 3, 9, ... If $$n=1$$ then it has no prime divisor but if $$n$$ is any other value (3, 9, ...) then it has one prime divisor: 3 itself. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From above the only possible value of $$n$$ is 1, and 1 has no prime divisor. Sufficient.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 01 May 2013
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 09:56
gmatteralltheway wrote:
ngotuan wrote:
so N doesn't have any prime divisor

The answer is C - you need both pieces of information to know for sure how many prime divisors N has.

My explanation

So for 2N to have 1 prime divisor, then N cannot be any prime number but 2 (because for e.g. 2 * 3 = 6, and 6 has two prime divisors - 2 and 3), nor can it be a composite number that can be broken down into any other prime numbers but 2 (for e.g. 18 can be broken down into 3 * 3 * 2, but 16, can only be broken down into 2 * 2 * 2 *2). Therefore, it doesn't matter what N is, as long as it satisfies these assumptions. So N can be 1, 2, 4, 8, etc... THEREFORE: If N is 1, then N has no prime divisors. But if N is 2, or 4, or 8, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 2. So this is insufficient by itself.

The same applies for 3N having 1 prime divisor, such that, N can be any number as long 3 is the only prime divisor. As such, N can be 1, 3, 9, 27, etc... If N is 1, then it has 0 prime divisors, and if N is 3, or 9, or 27, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 3. So this is insufficient by itself.

However, for 2N AND 3N to only have 1 prime divisor, then N must be equal to 1. Thus, we know N has no prime divisors, because 1 has no prime divisors. Therefore, Both of them together are sufficient.

Hope this helps!

but statement 1 and 2 says : 2N has one prime divisor( not distinct)
3N has one prime divisor(not distinct)
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 32539
Followers: 5625

Kudos [?]: 68239 [0], given: 9797

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 02:41
Expert's post
dyuthi92 wrote:
gmatteralltheway wrote:
ngotuan wrote:
so N doesn't have any prime divisor

The answer is C - you need both pieces of information to know for sure how many prime divisors N has.

My explanation

So for 2N to have 1 prime divisor, then N cannot be any prime number but 2 (because for e.g. 2 * 3 = 6, and 6 has two prime divisors - 2 and 3), nor can it be a composite number that can be broken down into any other prime numbers but 2 (for e.g. 18 can be broken down into 3 * 3 * 2, but 16, can only be broken down into 2 * 2 * 2 *2). Therefore, it doesn't matter what N is, as long as it satisfies these assumptions. So N can be 1, 2, 4, 8, etc... THEREFORE: If N is 1, then N has no prime divisors. But if N is 2, or 4, or 8, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 2. So this is insufficient by itself.

The same applies for 3N having 1 prime divisor, such that, N can be any number as long 3 is the only prime divisor. As such, N can be 1, 3, 9, 27, etc... If N is 1, then it has 0 prime divisors, and if N is 3, or 9, or 27, etc... then N has 1 prime divisor, which is 3. So this is insufficient by itself.

However, for 2N AND 3N to only have 1 prime divisor, then N must be equal to 1. Thus, we know N has no prime divisors, because 1 has no prime divisors. Therefore, Both of them together are sufficient.

Hope this helps!

but statement 1 and 2 says : 2N has one prime divisor( not distinct)
3N has one prime divisor(not distinct)

REVISED VERSION OF THIS QUESTION IS HERE: m18-73725.html#p1222432
_________________
Current Student
Joined: 11 Apr 2013
Posts: 53
Schools: Booth '17 (M)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:03
I think the revision is necessary as without it I took statement 1 to mean N has only 1 prime divisor, as in quantity, i.e. one 2, therefore N must be 1. Sufficient. Same for statement 2. With the addition of "distinct" to the two statements it is a good question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 331
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 44

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 17:26
dustwun wrote:
I think the revision is necessary as without it I took statement 1 to mean N has only 1 prime divisor, as in quantity, i.e. one 2, therefore N must be 1. Sufficient. Same for statement 2. With the addition of "distinct" to the two statements it is a good question.

I did the same thing. Without "distinct", the statement infers that there is one, and only one prime divisor, making both statements sufficient. It's interesting how one word can make such a difference.
Re: M18#37   [#permalink] 09 May 2013, 17:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# M18#37

Moderator: Bunuel

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.