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 350,000 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 cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
19 Jul 2008, 20:29

2

This post received KUDOS

6

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:45) correct
36% (00:52) wrong based on 170 sessions

The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness and also proportional to the square of its length. What is the cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1m thick.

(1) The cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.2 m thick is $160 more than the cost of a slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick

(2) The cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 m thick is 200 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
19 Jul 2008, 20:56

1

This post received KUDOS

The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness and also proportional to the square of its length. What is the cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1m thick.

(1) The cost of a square slab that is 2m long and 0.2 m thick is $160 more than the cost of a slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick area1 = 2x2x0.2 = 0.4m^2; area2 = 2x2x0.1 = 0.2m^2 A1 - A2 = 0.2m^2 = $160; so you can calculate the area of 0.1m^2 and you know that the are of the salb in question is 3x3x.1 = 0.9m^2

(2) The cost of a square slab that is 3 m long and 0.1 m thick is 200 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick Follow same logic as S1.

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
07 Sep 2009, 11:50

One clue for my view: the cost can be proportional to both thickness and length but with different proportionality constants. I mean, to me: Cost=a*thickness+b*length^2 not Cost=a*(thickness+length^2)

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
07 Sep 2009, 13:08

LenaA wrote:

I think the cost function is the following:

\(C=k\times t\times l^2\) t-thickness l-length

then each statement alone is sufficient

stmt1 \(4\times 0.2\times k=4\times 0.1\times k +160\) you can solve for k sufficient

stmt2 is basically similar to stmt 1... \(9\times 0.1\times k=4\times 0.1\times k +200\) you cansolve for k sufficient

In fact, that is the formula in order to be D the correct answer (as it is). But my point is, that in a very strict point of view, the proportionality constant (what you mean k), can be different for t and l, that is: Cost=k1*t+k2*l^2. So you need both statements to solve for k1 and k2, and correct answer is C.

To sum up, correct answer is C. OA is D. _________________

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
07 Sep 2009, 14:06

1

This post received KUDOS

you are wrong. i would suggest to research about the jointly proportional functions. if z is proptional to x (when y is constant) and z is propotional to y (when x is constant), then z is propotional to the product xy and is of the form z=Kxy

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
07 Sep 2009, 14:20

LenaA wrote:

you are wrong. i would suggest to research about the jointly proportional functions. if z is proptional to x (when y is constant) and z is propotional to y (when x is constant), then z is propotional to the product xy and is of the form z=Kxy

Correct. Thank u. Dont know in what i was thinking about!

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
07 Sep 2009, 14:32

We have only one value missing (here it's K) so it's sure that each statement is sufficient.

noboru wrote:

LenaA wrote:

you are wrong. i would suggest to research about the jointly proportional functions. if z is proptional to x (when y is constant) and z is propotional to y (when x is constant), then z is propotional to the product xy and is of the form z=Kxy

Correct. Thank u. Dont know in what i was thinking about!

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
19 Jan 2013, 02:01

2

This post received KUDOS

kiyo0610 wrote:

The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness and also proportional to the square of its length. What is the cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 meter thick?

(1)The cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.2 meter thick is $160 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.1 meter thick. (2)The cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 meter thick is $200 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.1 meter thick.

Cost C 1) C proportional to Thickness t 2) C proportional to Length square l^2

C = K t l^2

We need to know constant K to find the answer.

Option 1: C1 and C2 difference is given for some thickness and length. We can find the constant Option 2: Same as option1 _________________

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
09 Sep 2013, 06:04

I formed equation for cost as :

C prop to l^2 C prop to t

C = kl^2 + rt l= for length t= for thickness. k and r constant of respective proportionality.

But in above mentioned solution it is taken as product.

I am not 100% satisfied with the derived proportionality as the product of length and thickness.

May be I am not able to identify the keyword in the question which governs product of two variables. Or lacking some basic concept, kindly help me to interpret the language of question into a equation. Please also share any theoretical stuff, which I should refer to understand concept of proportionality.

Thanks _________________

Piyush K ----------------------- Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison Don't forget to press--> Kudos My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use?| 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New) Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
11 Sep 2013, 04:12

When I first attempted to solve this problem I was a little thrown off by the question just saying proportional, and not directly proportional or indirectly proportional. I now realize that solving this problem is independent of the direct vs. indirect, you may get different values for the cost, but regardless you'll be able to get a value => sufficient.

My question is, can you assume that it's directly proportional from the question stem? Looking at a few of the answers above, it seems that some people have. If this was a P.S. problem instead of a D.S., the answer would depend on this assumption.

Re: The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
25 Nov 2013, 02:01

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. _________________

Interpreting the infamous stone slab word problem [#permalink]
17 Jan 2015, 17:50

The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness and also proportional to the square of its length. What is the cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1m thick.

(1) The cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.2 m thick is $160 more than the cost of a slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick

(2) The cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 m thick is 200 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2m long and 0.1 m thick

I read over this on multiple forums and have come to understand why the correct answer is correct.

That is this question can be written as C = kAT where C is cost, A is area, and T is thickness. The wording of the problem essentially states that C is jointly proportional to A and T.

I (and I think a few others) chose to interpret the question as C = kA + mT, where there are now two proportionality constants defining the relationship. At first glance this seems like what the question is leading into, but alas is not the OA.

So based on the original wording of the question we can surmise the relationship is C=kAT. But what wording do you use then to describe the second relationship C = kA + mT? This way I know how to distinguish between these two types of relationships described.

Re: Interpreting the infamous stone slab word problem [#permalink]
18 Jan 2015, 00:17

1

This post received KUDOS

Kevin, In the case you mentioned, the wording should be something like "The cost of stone slab is dependent on its area and height" this can be interpreted as "C= kA + mT

But when it is mentioned that cost is "proportional" to any particular factor, then that implies a multiplicative relation only.

Further, on a lighter note: in the relation C= kA+mT; there can still be a cost even when one of A or T is zero!! So, I feel that even this fact indicates toward a relation like C= kAT

Hope it helps!

gmatclubot

Re: Interpreting the infamous stone slab word problem
[#permalink]
18 Jan 2015, 00:17

Hello everyone! Researching, networking, and understanding the “feel” for a school are all part of the essential journey to a top MBA. Wouldn’t it be great... ...

I have not posted in more than a month! It has been a super busy period, wrapping things up at Universal Music, completing most of the admin tasks in preparation for Stanford...