Question from Challenge 21 : Quant Question Archive [LOCKED]
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 15:59

### 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

# Question from Challenge 21

Author Message
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3460
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 864 [0], given: 781

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2006, 17:16
This topic is locked. If you want to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum.

If x is a positive Integer, is the number of its divisors smaller than 2*sqrt(x)-1?

(1) x is not a square of an integer
(2) x is prime
VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1348
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: Question from Challenge 21 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2006, 17:38
Praetorian wrote:

If x is a positive Integer, is the number of its divisors smaller than 2*sqrt(x)-1?

(1) x is not a square of an integer
(2) x is prime

suppose, n = no of divisors

(I) x could be 1 or 3 or 6 or so on.
=> if x = 1, n = 1 and 2*sqrt(x)-1 = 1.
so n = 2*sqrt(x)-1.
=> if x = 3, n = 2 (1 and 3) and 2*sqrt(3)-1 = 1.8 approx.
so, n>2*sqrt(x)-1.
=> if x = 6, n = 4 (1, 2, 3 and 6) and 2*sqrt(6)-1 = 4.4 approx. divisors<2*sqrt(x)-1.
so not sufficient.

(II) if x is a prime, n is always 2 but 2*sqrt(x)-1 greater or smaller than n. so not sufficient.

from i and ii, togather, also not sufficient. so E.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2006, 19:25
1) x is not square of an integer.

x = 3, # of divisors = 2 (1,3)
2*sqrt(x)-1 = 2.46
# of divisors smaller than 2*sqrt(x)-1

x = 11, # of divisors = 2 (1,11)
2*sqrt(x)-1 = 5.6
# of divisors smaller than 2*sqrt(x)-1

x = 8, # of divisors = 4 (1,2,4,8)
2*sqrt(x)-1 = 4.65
# of divisors smaller than 2*sqrt(x)-1

Sufficient.

(2) x is prime
If x is prime, it will always have two divisors, 1 and x.

x = 2, 2*sqrt(x)-1 = 1.8 (less than number of divisors)
x = 5, 2*sqrt(x)-1 = 3.4 (more than number of divisors)

Insufficient.

I go with A
VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1348
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: Question from Challenge 21 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2006, 21:03
i guess we cannot take 1 because it is a square but we can use 2. if so,
if x = 2, n = 2 (1 and 2) and 2*sqrt(2)-1 = 1.83 approx.
so, n>2*sqrt(x)-1.

Professor wrote:
suppose, n = no of divisors

(I) x could be 1 or 3 or 6 or so on.

=> if x = 1, n = 1 and 2*sqrt(x)-1 = 1.
so n = 2*sqrt(x)-1.

=> if x = 3, n = 2 (1 and 3) and 2*sqrt(3)-1 = 2.46 approx. so, n>2*sqrt(x)-1.

=> if x = 6, n = 4 (1, 2, 3 and 6) and 2*sqrt(6)-1 = 3.9 approx. divisors<2*sqrt(x)-1.
so not sufficient.

(II) if x is a prime, n is always 2 but 2*sqrt(x)-1 greater or smaller than n. so not sufficient.

from i and ii, togather, also not sufficient. so E.

from statement i, [the following table (calculated in XL format) would be more useful].

if x = 2, n = 2, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 1.83
if x = 3, n = 2, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 2.46
if x = 8, n = 4, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 4.66
if x = 11, n = 2, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 5.63
if x = 12, n = 6, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 5.93

from above when x = 2, and 12, n> 2sqrt(x)-1 and when x = 3, 8, and 11, n<2sqrt(x)-1. this proovs that A is out.

from st ii,
if x = 8, n = 4, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 4.66
if x = 12, n = 6, 2sqrt(x)-1 = 5.93

from above when x = 8, n< 2sqrt(x)-1 and when x = 12, n>2sqrt(x)-1. this proovs that A is out. this also rules out B.

togather also we cannot say which one is greater. so E.
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1890
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 293 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2006, 04:43
same method of substituing numbers --> same answer E.
20 Mar 2006, 04:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by