It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 17:00

### 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

# A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 3
Schools: Booth '17 (WL)
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2013, 00:08
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:55) correct 44% (01:56) wrong based on 146 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported that in 2004, revenues from car sales were 20 % more than the revenues from truck sales. In 2005, if the revenues tram truck sales kept unchanged, were the revenues form car sales still greater than the revenue from truck sales?

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.
(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 43867
Re: A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2013, 02:22
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported that in 2004, revenues from car sales were 20 % more than the revenues from truck sales. In 2005, if the revenues tram truck sales kept unchanged, were the revenues form car sales still greater than the revenue from truck sales?

In 2004:
{revenues from truck sales} = x.
{revenues from car sales} = 1.2x

In 2005:
{revenues from truck sales} = x.
{revenues from car sales} = ?.

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20% from 2004. If the revenue from car sales were down by 0%, then the answer would be YES but if the revenue from car sales were down by 19%, then the answer would be NO (1.2x*0.81<x). Not sufficient.

(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18% from 2004. Even if the revenue from car sales were down by only 18%, the revenue from car sales still would be less than x --> 1.2x*0.82<x. Sufficient.

_________________
Director
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 962
Re: A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2016, 10:53
ICsharp wrote:
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported that in 2004, revenues from car sales were 20 % more than the revenues from truck sales. In 2005, if the revenues tram truck sales kept unchanged, were the revenues form car sales still greater than the revenue from truck sales?

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.
(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.

take easy values for consideration
Let revenues from truck sales in 2004 =Rs 100
revenues from car sales=Rs 120 .
revenues from truck sales in 2005=Rs 100
revenues from car sales in 2005=?(<or> Rs100)
Statement(1) the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004
say it was down 19%...19%less of 120=Rs 97.2 (97.2<100)...NO
or it was down 1%...1%less of 120=Rs 118.8 (118.8>100)...YES.
Not sufff....
(2) the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004
even if you take a value 18.1% decreased it will be >Rs 100
120(1-18.1/100)=98.....it will always<100(truck sales revenue)
suff...
Ans B
Current Student
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 902
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Re: A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2016, 14:13
ICsharp wrote:
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported that in 2004, revenues from car sales were 20 % more than the revenues from truck sales. In 2005, if the revenues tram truck sales kept unchanged, were the revenues form car sales still greater than the revenue from truck sales?

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.
(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.

Let's say revenue from truck sales in 2004= 100
Revenue from car sales in 2004 = 120

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.

If the revenues were 20% less. Then, the actual revenue would have been 120 - 120*20/100= 120-24

But since the revenues are down less then 20%, revenues can be 19% (<revenues by trucks) or 10% (>revenues by trucks)

Not sufficient.

(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.
if it were 18%, then the revenues would have been 120- 120*18/100= 120- 22 (approximately)

But since revenues were down more than 18 %; revenues were always less than 100, and less than revenues from trucks. Sufficient.

_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Intern
Joined: 06 Oct 2013
Posts: 46
Re: A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 12:24
ICsharp wrote:
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported that in 2004, revenues from car sales were 20 % more than the revenues from truck sales. In 2005, if the revenues tram truck sales kept unchanged, were the revenues form car sales still greater than the revenue from truck sales?

(1) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.
(2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.
.

SOLUTION:

let t be the revenues from Trucks sales , and let c be the revenues from Cars sales .

In 2004, $$c=0.2*t--->t=0.83*c$$.

In 2005, t is same as in 2004.

Statement 1). In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down less than 20 % from 2004.

In 2005, new revenues from car sales= $$c-(<0.2*c)$$ = $$>0.8*c$$.
so it may or may not be less than $$0.83*c.$$

Hence Insufficient.

Statement 2) In 2005, the revenues from car sales were down more than 18 % from 2004.

In 2005 , new revenues from care sales=$$c-(>0.18*c) = <0.82*c.$$

it is always less than $$0.83*c$$.

Hence Sufficient.

Ans B
Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Posts: 86
A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2017, 01:08
2004 ---> C = 1.2 T
2005 ---> T is same and Is C still greater than T? Yes/No

1) C was down less than 20%.
Say C IS down by 20%

In 2004 ---> Suppose T = 100 then C will be 120.
In 2005 ---> C is down by 20% so C = 96 and less than 20% will make C>96.
We know T = 100 (remains unchanged)
So if C=97 and T=100....its NO (C is not greater than T)
if C=101 and T=100.....its YES (C is greater than T)
INSUFF

2) C is down more than 18%.
Again say C IS down by 20%.

From above w.k.t C=96 when its down by 20% (which is clearly more than 18%) and if continues to be more down then C<96.....Always NO
Hence SUFF

Option B
_________________

Sortem sternit fortem!

A certain company that sells only cars and trucks reported   [#permalink] 16 Feb 2017, 01:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by