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:

The next set of medium/hard DS number properties questions. I'll post OA's with detailed explanations on Friday. Please, post your solutions along with the answers.

1. If x is an integer, what is the value of x?

(1) |23x| is a prime number (2) \(2\sqrt{x^2}\) is a prime number.

11. If x and y are positive integers, is x a prime number?

(1) |x - 2| < 2 - y . The left hand side of the inequality is an absolute value, so the least value of LHS is zero, thus 0 < 2 - y, thus y < 2 (if y is more than or equal to 2, then \(y-2\leq{0}\) and it cannot be greater than |x - 2|). Next, since given that y is a positive integer, then y=1.

Answer: D.

Hi Bunuel, Thanks for the awesome questions that you ve posted.

I have a doubt in the above question. Could you please elaborate why can't we solve the Statement A as below -

|x - 2| < 2 - y ---> y-2< X-2 < 2-y

I tried solving above, by removing the Modulus, however I am not getting any specific value.

Kindly respond.

Thanks

Yes, to get the value of y its better to use the approach shown in my solution.
_________________

11. If x and y are positive integers, is x a prime number?

(1) |x - 2| < 2 - y . The left hand side of the inequality is an absolute value, so the least value of LHS is zero, thus 0 < 2 - y, thus y < 2 (if y is more than or equal to 2, then \(y-2\leq{0}\) and it cannot be greater than |x - 2|). Next, since given that y is a positive integer, then y=1.

Answer: D.

Hi Bunuel, Thanks for the awesome questions that you ve posted.

I have a doubt in the above question. Could you please elaborate why can't we solve the Statement A as below -

|x - 2| < 2 - y ---> y-2< X-2 < 2-y

I tried solving above, by removing the Modulus, however I am not getting any specific value.

Kindly respond.

Thanks

Responding to a pm:

If you must solve it using algebra, then do this:

|x - 2| < 2 - y

Take the two cases:

Case 1: x - 2 >= 0 i.e. x >= 2 x - 2 < 2 - y x + y < 4 Since x must be 2 or greater than 2 and x and y both are positive integers, x must be 2 and y must be 1 (x cannot be 3 or greater since y must be at least 1 but the sum of x and y in that case will not be less than 4).

Case 2: x - 2 < 0 i.e. x < 2 The only value that x can take in this case is 1. |1 - 2| < 2 - y 1 < 2 - y y < 1 But we know that y must be a positive integer so x cannot take value 1.

The only value that x can take is 2 which is prime. Hence this statement alone is sufficient.

Mind you, using algebra too you will have to use logic so you might as well look at Bunuel's solution again.
_________________

5. If a, b, and c are integers and a < b < c, are a, b, and c consecutive integers?

Note that: A. The factorial of a negative number is undefined. B. 0!=1. C. Only two factorials are odd: 0!=1 and 1!=1. D. Factorial of a number which is prime is 2!=2.

(1) The median of {a!, b!, c!} is an odd number. This implies that b!=odd. Thus b is 0 or 1. But if b=0, then a is a negative number, so in this case a! is not defined. Therefore a=0 and b=1, so the set is {0!, 1!, c!}={1, 1, c!}. Now, if c=2, then the answer is YES but if c is any other number then the answer is NO. Not sufficient.

(2) c! is a prime number. This implies that c=2. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From above we have that a=0, b=1 and c=2, thus the answer to the question is YES. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

A small question, when the outcome of {a!, b!, c!} is an odd number ...is ...{1, 1, c!}, should we need to check what C is ? as whatever the C is it cant be consecutive integers.

5. If a, b, and c are integers and a < b < c, are a, b, and c consecutive integers?

Note that: A. The factorial of a negative number is undefined. B. 0!=1. C. Only two factorials are odd: 0!=1 and 1!=1. D. Factorial of a number which is prime is 2!=2.

(1) The median of {a!, b!, c!} is an odd number. This implies that b!=odd. Thus b is 0 or 1. But if b=0, then a is a negative number, so in this case a! is not defined. Therefore a=0 and b=1, so the set is {0!, 1!, c!}={1, 1, c!}. Now, if c=2, then the answer is YES but if c is any other number then the answer is NO. Not sufficient.

(2) c! is a prime number. This implies that c=2. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From above we have that a=0, b=1 and c=2, thus the answer to the question is YES. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

A small question, when the outcome of {a!, b!, c!} is an odd number ...is ...{1, 1, c!}, should we need to check what C is ? as whatever the C is it cant be consecutive integers.

Regards Sanjiv

If we knew for sure that the set is {1, 1, c!}, then yes we would have a definite NO answer to the question. But {1, 1, c!} is not possible since a < b < c implies that the integers in the set are distinct.

(1) implies that the set is {0, 1, c!} ({0!=1, 1!=1, c!}) and if c=2, then the answer would be YES, but if c=3, then the answer would be NO.

9. If [x] denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x for any number x, is [a] + [b] = 1 ?

Given that some function [] rounds DOWN a number to the nearest integer. For example [1.5]=1, [2]=2, [-1.5]=-2, ...

(1) ab = 2. First of all this means that a and b are of the same sign.

If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b. So, this case is out.

If both are positive, then in order [a] + [b] = 1 to hold true, must be true that [a]=0 and [b]=1 (or vise-versa). Which means that \(0\leq{a}<1\) and \(1\leq{b}<2\) (or vise-versa). But in this case ab cannot be equal to 2. So, this case is also out.

We have that the answer to the question is NO. Sufficient.

(2) 0 < a < b < 2. If a=1/2 and b=1, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 1 = 1 but if a=1/4 and b=1/2, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 0 = 0. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel,

Could you please tell me (with sample numbers) how you arrived at the maximum value of [a] + [b] = -2 for any negative a and b?

i took the case of a=-2 and b=-1 and hence ab=2. In this case i am getting [a]+[b] = (-2) + (-1) = -3

9. If [x] denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x for any number x, is [a] + [b] = 1 ?

Given that some function [] rounds DOWN a number to the nearest integer. For example [1.5]=1, [2]=2, [-1.5]=-2, ...

(1) ab = 2. First of all this means that a and b are of the same sign.

If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b. So, this case is out.

If both are positive, then in order [a] + [b] = 1 to hold true, must be true that [a]=0 and [b]=1 (or vise-versa). Which means that \(0\leq{a}<1\) and \(1\leq{b}<2\) (or vise-versa). But in this case ab cannot be equal to 2. So, this case is also out.

We have that the answer to the question is NO. Sufficient.

(2) 0 < a < b < 2. If a=1/2 and b=1, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 1 = 1 but if a=1/4 and b=1/2, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 0 = 0. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel,

Could you please tell me (with sample numbers) how you arrived at the maximum value of [a] + [b] = -2 for any negative a and b?

i took the case of a=-2 and b=-1 and hence ab=2. In this case i am getting [a]+[b] = (-2) + (-1) = -3

Let me know if i am missing something.

"If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b." Since, -3<-2, then this statement holds for this set of numbers too.

9. If [x] denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x for any number x, is [a] + [b] = 1 ?

Given that some function [] rounds DOWN a number to the nearest integer. For example [1.5]=1, [2]=2, [-1.5]=-2, ...

(1) ab = 2. First of all this means that a and b are of the same sign.

If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b. So, this case is out.

If both are positive, then in order [a] + [b] = 1 to hold true, must be true that [a]=0 and [b]=1 (or vise-versa). Which means that \(0\leq{a}<1\) and \(1\leq{b}<2\) (or vise-versa). But in this case ab cannot be equal to 2. So, this case is also out.

We have that the answer to the question is NO. Sufficient.

(2) 0 < a < b < 2. If a=1/2 and b=1, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 1 = 1 but if a=1/4 and b=1/2, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 0 = 0. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel,

Could you please tell me (with sample numbers) how you arrived at the maximum value of [a] + [b] = -2 for any negative a and b?

i took the case of a=-2 and b=-1 and hence ab=2. In this case i am getting [a]+[b] = (-2) + (-1) = -3

Let me know if i am missing something.

"If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b." Since, -3<-2, then this statement holds for this set of numbers too.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes! It does make sense. I understand that the statement does not fall apart. But I was just interested in knowing if there is a case possible where we can get -2 as the maximum value.

9. If [x] denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x for any number x, is [a] + [b] = 1 ?

Given that some function [] rounds DOWN a number to the nearest integer. For example [1.5]=1, [2]=2, [-1.5]=-2, ...

(1) ab = 2. First of all this means that a and b are of the same sign.

If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b. So, this case is out.

If both are positive, then in order [a] + [b] = 1 to hold true, must be true that [a]=0 and [b]=1 (or vise-versa). Which means that \(0\leq{a}<1\) and \(1\leq{b}<2\) (or vise-versa). But in this case ab cannot be equal to 2. So, this case is also out.

We have that the answer to the question is NO. Sufficient.

(2) 0 < a < b < 2. If a=1/2 and b=1, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 1 = 1 but if a=1/4 and b=1/2, then [a] + [b] = 0 + 0 = 0. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hi Bunuel,

Could you please tell me (with sample numbers) how you arrived at the maximum value of [a] + [b] = -2 for any negative a and b?

i took the case of a=-2 and b=-1 and hence ab=2. In this case i am getting [a]+[b] = (-2) + (-1) = -3

Let me know if i am missing something.

"If both are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -2, for any negative a and b." Since, -3<-2, then this statement holds for this set of numbers too.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes! It does make sense. I understand that the statement does not fall apart. But I was just interested in knowing if there is a case possible where we can get -2 as the maximum value.

What I meant was that generally if a and b are negative, then the maximum value of [a] + [b] is -1+(-1)=-2. But you cannot get -2, if ab=2.
_________________

11. If x and y are positive integers, is x a prime number?

(1) |x - 2| < 2 - y . The left hand side of the inequality is an absolute value, so the least value of LHS is zero, thus 0 < 2 - y, thus y < 2 (if y is more than or equal to 2, then \(y-2\leq{0}\) and it cannot be greater than |x - 2|). Next, since given that y is a positive integer, then y=1.

So, we have that: \(|x - 2| < 1\), which implies that \(-1 < x-2 < 1\), or \(1 < x < 3\), thus \(x=2=prime\). Sufficient.

(2) x + y - 3 = |1-y|. Since y is a positive integer, then \(1-y\leq{0}\), thus \(|1-y|=-(1-y)\). So, we have that \(x + y - 3 = -(1-y)\), which gives \(x=2=prime\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hi

Can any one explain me the Why Statement 1 is not sufficient. . I am not able to fellow the Bunuel concept and i doubt even in exam will i be able to think like it. Please explain in algebric method.

11. If x and y are positive integers, is x a prime number?

(1) |x - 2| < 2 - y . The left hand side of the inequality is an absolute value, so the least value of LHS is zero, thus 0 < 2 - y, thus y < 2 (if y is more than or equal to 2, then \(y-2\leq{0}\) and it cannot be greater than |x - 2|). Next, since given that y is a positive integer, then y=1.

So, we have that: \(|x - 2| < 1\), which implies that \(-1 < x-2 < 1\), or \(1 < x < 3\), thus \(x=2=prime\). Sufficient.

(2) x + y - 3 = |1-y|. Since y is a positive integer, then \(1-y\leq{0}\), thus \(|1-y|=-(1-y)\). So, we have that \(x + y - 3 = -(1-y)\), which gives \(x=2=prime\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hi

Can any one explain me the Why Statement 1 is not sufficient. . I am not able to fellow the Bunuel concept and i doubt even in exam will i be able to think like it. Please explain in algebric method.

6. Set S consists of more than two integers. Are all the integers in set S negative?

(1) The product of any three integers in the set is negative. If the set consists of only 3 terms, then the set could be either {negative, negative, negative} or {negative, positive, positive}. If the set consists of more than 3 terms, then the set can only have negative numbers. Not sufficient.

(2) The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign. Thus the set consists of only negative or only positive integers. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Since the second statement rules out {negative, positive, positive} case which we had from (1), then we have that the set must have only negative integers. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Dear Bunuel, First of all,i would like to thank you for all your sincere efforts that help innumerable gMAT takers like me.

In the explanation provided for statement 2,i did not quite understand how all the numbers of the set would have the same sign,if the smallest and largest terms have the same sign.The set contains>2 terms and from statement,we can comment only about 2 terms.Can you help me understand?

6. Set S consists of more than two integers. Are all the integers in set S negative?

(1) The product of any three integers in the set is negative. If the set consists of only 3 terms, then the set could be either {negative, negative, negative} or {negative, positive, positive}. If the set consists of more than 3 terms, then the set can only have negative numbers. Not sufficient.

(2) The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign. Thus the set consists of only negative or only positive integers. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Since the second statement rules out {negative, positive, positive} case which we had from (1), then we have that the set must have only negative integers. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Dear Bunuel, First of all,i would like to thank you for all your sincere efforts that help innumerable gMAT takers like me.

In the explanation provided for statement 2,i did not quite understand how all the numbers of the set would have the same sign,if the smallest and largest terms have the same sign.The set contains>2 terms and from statement,we can comment only about 2 terms.Can you help me understand?

Thank you, Fido

(2) says: The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number.

Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign.

So either: smallest * greatest = negative * negative and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are negative then ALL integers in the list are negative OR smallest * greatest = positive * positive and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are positive then ALL integers in the list are positive.

(1) \(|23x|\) is a prime number. From this statement it follows that x=1 or x=-1. Not sufficient.

(2) \(2\sqrt{x^2}\) is a prime number. The same here: x=1 or x=-1. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) x could be 1 or -1. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Bunuel A question, in Statement 1 if we take the value of x = -1, than 23x = -23 I think -23 is not a prime. So x can only and only be +1 Therefore, Statement (1) is sufficient.

(1) \(|23x|\) is a prime number. From this statement it follows that x=1 or x=-1. Not sufficient.

(2) \(2\sqrt{x^2}\) is a prime number. The same here: x=1 or x=-1. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) x could be 1 or -1. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Bunuel A question, in Statement 1 if we take the value of x = -1, than 23x = -23 I think -23 is not a prime. So x can only and only be +1 Therefore, Statement (1) is sufficient.

What's your take on it.

Regards

Notice that in the first statement we have the absolute value of 23x --> |23x|. If x=-1, then |23x|=|23*(-1)|=23=prime.

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...

Happy 2017! Here is another update, 7 months later. With this pace I might add only one more post before the end of the GSB! However, I promised that...

The words of John O’Donohue ring in my head every time I reflect on the transformative, euphoric, life-changing, demanding, emotional, and great year that 2016 was! The fourth to...