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:

w, x, y, and z are integers. If w > x > y > z > 0, is y a common divisor of w and x?

(1)w/x = z^-1 + x^-1 (2)w^2-wy-2w=0

This is a pretty awkwardly designed question. From Statement 1 we know:

w/x = (1/z) + (1/x) w = (x/z) + 1

Now we know from the stem that w > x, or, since w and x are integers, that w > x + 1. Substituting in the expression we just found for w, we have that

(x/z) + 1 > x + 1 x/z > x

If z is an integer, this could only be true if z = 1 (if z is bigger than 1, clearly the left side of the inequality above will be smaller than the right side). So we know that z=1, and plugging that into our expression for w, we know that

w = (x/z) + 1 w = x + 1

So w is 1 greater than x, and w and x are therefore consecutive integers. The Greatest Common Divisor of any two consecutive positive integers is *always* equal to 1. Since y cannot be equal to 1 (since y > x > 0, and x and y are integers, the smallest possible value of y is 2), y cannot be a common divisor of x and w. So Statement 1 is sufficient.

From Statement 2 we can factor out a w:

w^2-wy-2w=0 w(w - y - 2) = 0

For this product to be 0, one of the factors on the left side must be 0. We know that w is not zero, so w - y - 2 must be zero:

w - y - 2 = 0 w = y + 2

But if w > x > y, and each of these quantities are integers, then if w is exactly 2 greater than y, it must be that w, x and y are three consecutive integers. So again we know that w and x are consecutive integers, and just as we saw in Statement 1, it is impossible for y to be a common divisor of both.

So the answer is D, since each statement is sufficient to give a 'no' answer to the question.

I find it an awkward question because it tries to confuse the fundamental concept behind the question (GCD of consecutive integers is 1) by introducing distractions like negative exponents. That's not something you see in real GMAT questions. It also is a question where the statements are sufficient to give a 'no' answer, and such questions are very rare on the real GMAT - in most yes/no DS questions, if statements are sufficient, the answer is 'yes'. The basic concept in this question is difficult enough without it needing to be complicated further. _________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

w, x, y, and z are integers. If w > x > y > z > 0, is y a common divisor of w and x?

(1)w/x = z^-1 + x^-1 (2)w^2-wy-2w=0

This is a pretty awkwardly designed question. From Statement 1 we know:

w/x = (1/z) + (1/x) w = (x/z) + 1

Now we know from the stem that w > x, or, since w and x are integers, that w > x + 1. Substituting in the expression we just found for w, we have that

(x/z) + 1 > x + 1 x/z > x

If z is an integer, this could only be true if z = 1 (if z is bigger than 1, clearly the left side of the inequality above will be smaller than the right side). So we know that z=1, and plugging that into our expression for w, we know that

w = (x/z) + 1 w = x + 1

So w is 1 greater than x, and w and x are therefore consecutive integers. The Greatest Common Divisor of any two consecutive positive integers is *always* equal to 1. Since y cannot be equal to 1 (since y > x > 0, and x and y are integers, the smallest possible value of y is 2), y cannot be a common divisor of x and w. So Statement 1 is sufficient.

From Statement 2 we can factor out a w:

w^2-wy-2w=0 w(w - y - 2) = 0

For this product to be 0, one of the factors on the left side must be 0. We know that w is not zero, so w - y - 2 must be zero:

w - y - 2 = 0 w = y + 2

But if w > x > y, and each of these quantities are integers, then if w is exactly 2 greater than y, it must be that w, x and y are three consecutive integers. So again we know that w and x are consecutive integers, and just as we saw in Statement 1, it is impossible for y to be a common divisor of both.

So the answer is D, since each statement is sufficient to give a 'no' answer to the question.

I find it an awkward question because it tries to confuse the fundamental concept behind the question (GCD of consecutive integers is 1) by introducing distractions like negative exponents. That's not something you see in real GMAT questions. It also is a question where the statements are sufficient to give a 'no' answer, and such questions are very rare on the real GMAT - in most yes/no DS questions, if statements are sufficient, the answer is 'yes'. The basic concept in this question is difficult enough without it needing to be complicated further.

Why is it impossible for y to be a common divisor of both in statement 2, there's no restriction to the value of y given in statement 2, so y could be 1, which would make it a common divisor of w and x, wouldnt it?

Why is it impossible for y to be a common divisor of both in statement 2, there's no restriction to the value of y given in statement 2, so y could be 1, which would make it a common divisor of w and x, wouldnt it?

There is a restriction on the value of y, in the question. We know that z and y are integers, and that y > z > 0. So the smallest possible value of z is 1, and the smallest possible value of y is 2. It is not possible, just from the stem alone, that y is 1 here. _________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

First of all, Ian, wonderful approach. I learned a lot from your approach. Thanks.

I followed the following crude approach to solve the problem:

We know that w > x > y > z > 0. Thus the least value of z is 1. Least value of y is 2.

I considered the values of z, y, x and w as Case 1. z = 1, y = 2, x = 3, w = 4. In this case, y is NOT a factor of both x and w Case 2. z = 1, y = 2, x = 4, w = 8. In this case, y is a factor of both x and w

Statement 1: Substitute the values for each case in the equation given (w/x) = (1/z) + (1/x) Case 1: The values satisfy the equation. Case 2: The values do not satisfy the equation.

Statement 2: w^2 - wy - 2w = 0 => w(w - y - 2) = 0 => either w = 0 or (w - y - 2) = 0. w cannot be 0 because w > 0. Thus, w - y = 2. Substitute the values for each case in the equation above. Case 1: The values satisfy the equation. Case 2: The values do not satisfy the equation.

As seen from both statements, only 1 case satisfies the given statements. Thus, the given numbers are consecutive integers. We can see that y is, thus, not a factor of both x and w. Thus, D is the answer. _________________

Tough one and calculation intensive - obviously being from MGMAT.

w > x > y > z > 0 are w/y or x/y integers

I am going to use AD/BCE strategy here. S2 appears simple..

2. Rephrase gives us w = 0, w = y+2. But w>0, so w = y+2. That means that w,x,y are a sequence. There is no way y becomes factor of w and x. Sufficient B removed, now D.

1. Rephrase gives wz = x+z. Lets plug numbers here 4,3,2,1 satisfies the above, y is not a factor of w and x 5,4,2,1 or 5,4,3,1 satisfies, but y is not a factor of w and x Sufficient.

D it is. _________________

I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul. Please consider giving +1 Kudos if deserved!

DS - If negative answer only, still sufficient. No need to find exact solution. PS - Always look at the answers first CR - Read the question stem first, hunt for conclusion SC - Meaning first, Grammar second RC - Mentally connect paragraphs as you proceed. Short = 2min, Long = 3-4 min

Good news for globetrotting MBAs: travel can make you a better leader. A recent article I read espoused the benefits of traveling from a managerial perspective, stating that it...