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 cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness a [#permalink]
19 Jul 2008, 20:29
2
This post received KUDOS
11
This post was BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55% (hard)
Question Stats:
62% (01:39) correct
38% (00:45) wrong based on 223 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
As I’m halfway through my second year now, graduation is now rapidly approaching. I’ve neglected this blog in the last year, mainly because I felt I didn’...
Perhaps known best for its men’s basketball team – winners of five national championships, including last year’s – Duke University is also home to an elite full-time MBA...
Hilary Term has only started and we can feel the heat already. The two weeks have been packed with activities and submissions, giving a peek into what will follow...