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

 It is currently 31 Aug 2016, 22:44

### 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

# Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 149
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 68 [5] , given: 11

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2010, 16:38
5
KUDOS
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:02) correct 56% (01:01) wrong based on 214 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 34527
Followers: 6314

Kudos [?]: 80130 [6] , given: 10027

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2010, 17:18
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

_________________
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 393

Kudos [?]: 1380 [2] , given: 4

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2010, 17:21
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 149
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2010, 21:54
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.
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2795
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 220

Kudos [?]: 1514 [0], given: 235

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 09:48
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.

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
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 149
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 68 [1] , given: 11

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 12:32
1
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.

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
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2795
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 220

Kudos [?]: 1514 [0], given: 235

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 12:40
oh..haha....sahi
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 13:40
This question is DS + CR mixed!
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 149
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.78
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 14:15
jeeteshsingh wrote:
This question is DS + CR mixed!

That is true
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 470
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 19:05
its a good question!
+1
_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2012, 08:55
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: 34527
Followers: 6314

Kudos [?]: 80130 [0], given: 10027

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 00:33
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.
_________________
Director
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 612
WE: Science (Education)
Followers: 90

Kudos [?]: 822 [0], given: 43

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 02:23
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.

_________________

PhD in Applied Mathematics
Love GMAT Quant questions and running.

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 34527
Followers: 6314

Kudos [?]: 80130 [0], given: 10027

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 02:30
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.

Both t=1 and t=5 satisfy the statements. So, the answer is E.
_________________
Director
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 612
WE: Science (Education)
Followers: 90

Kudos [?]: 822 [0], given: 43

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 02:50
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.

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

Oops! I missed the -2 possibility...
_________________

PhD in Applied Mathematics
Love GMAT Quant questions and running.

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 34527
Followers: 6314

Kudos [?]: 80130 [0], given: 10027

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 03:39
Bumping for review and further discussion.
_________________
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 11190
Followers: 512

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 0

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2014, 00:50
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.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 43

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2014, 01:05
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.

Hello Bunuel, thanks for your massive help

I have a little problem with your conclusion from second statement. I believe that there is no chance to have this situation: "t+3=actual extinction -2"
I believe that the prediction is right when the actual extinction occurs before predicted time ("actual extinction<t" then prediction is right). For instance if scientists have predicted the extinction in 4 yrs and it occurs in 5 yrs, adding 3 yrs to their predicted time, means that they have predicted that extinction occurs in 7 yrs which include the real extinction time. So, actual extinction time must be 9 yrs. So, I believe answer is C
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 34527
Followers: 6314

Kudos [?]: 80130 [0], given: 10027

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2014, 08:43
heartbanger97 wrote:
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.

Hello Bunuel, thanks for your massive help

I have a little problem with your conclusion from second statement. I believe that there is no chance to have this situation: "t+3=actual extinction -2"
I believe that the prediction is right when the actual extinction occurs before predicted time ("actual extinction<t" then prediction is right). For instance if scientists have predicted the extinction in 4 yrs and it occurs in 5 yrs, adding 3 yrs to their predicted time, means that they have predicted that extinction occurs in 7 yrs which include the real extinction time. So, actual extinction time must be 9 yrs. So, I believe answer is C

Note that the official answer and all the poster above disagree with you.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 204
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2015, 03:40
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.

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?
Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would   [#permalink] 20 Apr 2015, 03:40

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Ten years ago, Dorothy deposited a certain amount of money in account 3 29 Jul 2015, 10:02
7 A zoo has w wildebeests, y yaks, z zebras, and no other animals. If 6 07 Jul 2015, 02:44
2 G, P, and S are animal species. What is the average life span, in year 3 16 Dec 2014, 05:48
6 Five years ago at Laboratory B, the ratio of doctorate 5 28 Jan 2013, 08:08
Joe is older to Lloyd by five years. Ten years ago, John was 9 29 Aug 2009, 00:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by