Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 17:26 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 17:26

Close
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
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 105
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [37]
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92948
Own Kudos [?]: 619244 [22]
Given Kudos: 81609
Send PM
General Discussion
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9247 [2]
Given Kudos: 91
 Q51  V47
Send PM
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 105
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
IanStewart wrote:
alexBLR wrote:
Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.


From S1 we learn that the animal became extinct 6 years after the scientists made their prediction. Of course, we have no info about t, so this is not sufficient. Similarly S2 is not sufficient, since we have no info about when the animal actually became extinct.

Combining the two Statements, we know that if we add three to t, the value we get will be two away from the correct value, which is, from Statement 1, six. We do not, however, know if it will be two above or two below the correct value, so we will get two different possible values for t. That is, the scientists may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 1 year; adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. Or, they may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 5 years; again, adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. The answer is E.

I'm curious where the question is from; it's a bit different from other questions I've seen.



It is from the MGMAT Question Bank.
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Status:<strong>Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.</strong>
Posts: 2279
Own Kudos [?]: 3595 [0]
Given Kudos: 235
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
(1) The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.


From S1 we get it got extincted 6 years after the prediction. then t =6? they are just asking after how many years of prediction it will be extincted.
Pls correct me where m wrong
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 105
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
2
Kudos
gurpreetsingh wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
(1) The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.


From S1 we get it got extincted 6 years after the prediction. then t =6? they are just asking after how many years of prediction it will be extincted.
Pls correct me where m wrong


I fall into the same trap and assumed that sientists' prediction is acurate. However, in this case the sientists' prediction for time of extinction is not necessarily equal to the time of actual animal extinction
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Status:<strong>Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.</strong>
Posts: 2279
Own Kudos [?]: 3595 [0]
Given Kudos: 235
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
oh..haha....sahi
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 179
Own Kudos [?]: 944 [1]
Given Kudos: 48
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
1
Kudos
This question is DS + CR mixed! :maniac
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Own Kudos [?]: 1007 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: somewhat confusing problem [#permalink]
its a good question!
+1
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Bunuel, this problem, in my view, is ambiguous in its statement. Is t representing only the scientists' prediction, or the actual time of extinction. And in a math problem , shouldn't we be assuming these to be the same.(and not employ our CR skills)
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92948
Own Kudos [?]: 619244 [0]
Given Kudos: 81609
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Expert Reply
suryadasika wrote:
Bunuel, this problem, in my view, is ambiguous in its statement. Is t representing only the scientists' prediction, or the actual time of extinction. And in a math problem , shouldn't we be assuming these to be the same.(and not employ our CR skills)


Well, common sense says that predictions are not 100% precise. But even if you are confused by the first statement, the second one should help to realize that the predicted extinction date and the actual extinction date are not the same.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 520
Own Kudos [?]: 2136 [0]
Given Kudos: 43
WE:Science (Education)
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
alexBLR wrote:
Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.


Just my two cents:
I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction.
Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction.
Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together:
Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5.
Sufficient.

Answer C
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92948
Own Kudos [?]: 619244 [0]
Given Kudos: 81609
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Expert Reply
EvaJager wrote:
alexBLR wrote:
Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.


Just my two cents:
I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction.
Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction.
Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together:
Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5.
Sufficient.

Answer C


Both t=1 and t=5 satisfy the statements. So, the answer is E.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 520
Own Kudos [?]: 2136 [0]
Given Kudos: 43
WE:Science (Education)
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
EvaJager wrote:
alexBLR wrote:
Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.


Just my two cents:
I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction.
Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction.
Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together:
Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5.
Sufficient.

Answer C


Both t=1 and t=5 satisfy the statements. So, the answer is E.


Oops! I missed the -2 possibility...
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago. The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years. Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.



Hi Bunuel,
Initially I choose A.Then after analysis,I found that in question scientist predicted that the animal z "would" become extinct in t years.Would is assumption or uncertainty whereas in answer it is given that animal became extinct 4 years ago(certainty).
Is this the right logic to rule out A?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 128
Own Kudos [?]: 714 [0]
Given Kudos: 138
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
here is my two cents!
Attachments

Foto.jpg
Foto.jpg [ 98.28 KiB | Viewed 10346 times ]

Director
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 510
Own Kudos [?]: 3379 [0]
Given Kudos: 877
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
The question does not ask for the actual number of years ago that animal z became extinct. Instead it asks for t, the number of years scientists predicted it would take for animal z to become extinct.

(1) INSUFFICIENT: This tells us that animal z became extinct 4 years ago but it does not provide information about t.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: This provides a relationship between the predicted time of extinction time and the actual time of extinction but does not provide any actual values for either.

(1) AND (2) INSUFFICIENT: The easiest way to approach this problem is to imagine a time line from 0 to 10. The scientists made their prediction 10 years ago, or at 0 years.

From statement (1) we know that animal z became extinct 4 years ago, or at 6 years.

From statement (2) we know that if the scientists had extended their prediction by 3 years they would have been incorrect by 2 years. The key to this question is to realize that "incorrect by 2 years" could mean 2 years in either direction: 6 + 2 = 8 years or 6 – 2 = 4 years.

From here, we can write two simple equations:

t + 3 = 8 OR t + 3 = 4
t = 5 t = 1

This gives us two different values for t, which means that (1) and (2) together are not sufficient to come up with one definitive value for t. The correct answer is E.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Status:MBA Completed
Affiliations: IIM
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 97 [0]
Given Kudos: 107
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
I have done the same silly mistake twice in this question :( . "Actually extinct" v/s "extinct" .
Could anyone help me to improve on such things - it would be a great help.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Posts: 935
Own Kudos [?]: 1541 [0]
Given Kudos: 115
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V49
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Expert Reply
DAakash7 wrote:
I have done the same silly mistake twice in this question :( . "Actually extinct" v/s "extinct" .
Could anyone help me to improve on such things - it would be a great help.


Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by this? If you could write out your solution (including where you went wrong), I'd be able to help.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 32689
Own Kudos [?]: 822 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]
Moderator:
Math Expert
92948 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne