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:

A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Aug 2014, 04:02

2

This post received KUDOS

3

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (01:22) correct
53% (01:30) wrong based on 241 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\), when q is another prime. If p and q are positive integers, is p a Wagstaff prime?

(1) p = q (2) q = (3^0)*3

Attachment:

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 4.49.38 PM.png [ 21.72 KiB | Viewed 2263 times ]

Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT, as two different values satisfy the equation: p = q = 1 (which is not prime) and p = q = 3 (which is prime). Simplify statement (2): 30=1, and 1∗3=3, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given. ((23)+1)3 = 93=3, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Aug 2014, 04:10

I think the answer should be C. 2 queries:

1) How can we assume that the value of P in Statement (2) is (2^q + 1) ? Is it not possible that P can take on any value?

2) Are we not assuming what we seek to prove? The question states that P is a Wagstaff Prime... and then in the answer choice we need to prove the same thing!

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Aug 2014, 09:13

pratikshr wrote:

I think the answer should be C. 2 queries:

1) How can we assume that the value of P in Statement (2) is (2^q + 1) ? Is it not possible that P can take on any value?

2) Are we not assuming what we seek to prove? The question states that P is a Wagstaff Prime... and then in the answer choice we need to prove the same thing!

Answer is B

A) 3P = 2^P + 1, If P=1, then 3=3 so P is not prime ( 1 is not prime). If P=3, then 9=9 so P is prime. --> A doesnt hold

B) Q= 3^0*3, so Q=3....Equation is 3P = 2^3 + 1....So P = 3, which is prime --> B holds

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Aug 2014, 22:16

Solution: B

Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT, as two different values satisfy the equation: p = q = 1 (which is not prime) and p = q = 3 (which is prime). Simplify statement (2): 30=1, and 1∗3=3, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given. ((23)+1)3 = 93=3, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Feb 2015, 06:17

P=q=1 is not possible as it says q is another prime , here q is not a prime. So p=q=3 is the only possible solution for statement 1, correct me if i am wrong.

hence shouldn't the answer be D ,Someone please provide convincing explanation for B or Change the OA

This DS question is oddly-worded, in that it describes a very specific set of conditions (the definition of a Wagstaff prime), but does NOT tell you that the variables involved are actually a part of that equation.

Based on the prompt, there are 3 conditions that MUST be met for a Wagstaff prime to occur: 1) Q MUST be a prime number 2) The Wagstaff 'equation' must be used 3) The resulting value of P MUST be a prime number too.

Consider the following possibilities:

IF... Q = 3, then P = (2^3 + 1)/3 = 3, so YES, P IS a Wagstaff Prime

IF... Q = 2, then P = (2^2 + 1)/3 = 5/3, so NO, P is NOT a Wagstaff Prime

IF.... Q = 1, then no calculation is done, since Q is NOT a prime, so P is NOT a Wagstaff Prime (P can be ANY integer though, since it's not related to Q).

We're told that P and Q are positive integers. The question asks if P is a Wagstaff prime. This is a YES/NO question. The answer depends ENTIRELY on the value of Q.

Fact 1: P = Q

Given the examples above, you can see 2 immediate possibilities:

P = Q = 1 and the answer to the question is NO P = Q = 3 and the answer to the question is YES Fact 1 is INSUFFICIENT

Fact 2: Q = (3^0)(3)

This tells us that Q = 3. From the above example, we can see that P will = 3 when Q=3, so the answer to the question is ALWAYS YES. Fact 2 is SUFFICIENT.

A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\), when q is another prime. If p and q are positive integers, is p a Wagstaff prime?

Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT, as two different values satisfy the equation: p = q = 1 (which is not prime) and p = q = 3 (which is prime). Simplify statement (2): 30=1, and 1∗3=3, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given. ((23)+1)3 = 93=3, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).

When a prime number p satisfies this condition: \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\) where q is also prime, p is called a Wagstaff prime. You are also given that p and q are positive integers.

If p a Wagstaff prime? This will depend on q. If p satisfies \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\) and q is a prime number in this expression, then p is a Wagstaff prime.

(1) p = q This just tells you that q = p. You know that p and q are positive integers. So if q is a prime number, p will be Wagstaff prime. If q = 1, p = 1 (p and q are not prime) . If q = 3, p = 3 (p and q both are prime) So in one case, p is a Wagstaff prime, in another it is not. (2) q = (3^0)*3 q = 3. In this case p = 3 is a Wagstaff prime. Sufficient alone.

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Feb 2015, 04:47

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

pratikshr wrote:

A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\), when q is another prime. If p and q are positive integers, is p a Wagstaff prime?

Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT, as two different values satisfy the equation: p = q = 1 (which is not prime) and p = q = 3 (which is prime). Simplify statement (2): 30=1, and 1∗3=3, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given. ((23)+1)3 = 93=3, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).

When a prime number p satisfies this condition: \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\) where q is also prime, p is called a Wagstaff prime. You are also given that p and q are positive integers.

If p a Wagstaff prime? This will depend on q. If p satisfies \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\) and q is a prime number in this expression, then p is a Wagstaff prime.

(1) p = q This just tells you that q = p. You know that p and q are positive integers. So if q is a prime number, p will be Wagstaff prime. If q = 1, p = 1 (p and q are not prime) . If q = 3, p = 3 (p and q both are prime) So in one case, p is a Wagstaff prime, in another it is not. (2) q = (3^0)*3 q = 3. In this case p = 3 is a Wagstaff prime. Sufficient alone.

Answer (B)

Thanks for clearing that, misunderstood the question.

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jan 2016, 22:06

I picked B, but my concern is that:

p=(2^q+1)/3, when q is another prime some guys are selecting 1 but q is not a prime, thus it initially doesn't satisfy the condition. we must start with a q prime to get to a p prime... very confusing question...

p=(2^q+1)/3, when q is another prime some guys are selecting 1 but q is not a prime, thus it initially doesn't satisfy the condition. we must start with a q prime to get to a p prime... very confusing question...

"A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p=2^q+13, when q is another prime." - this is the definition of a Wagstaff prime. It doesn't tell us that variable p is a prime number. It just tells us that if q is prime and 2^q+13 is prime, it is equal to p and called a Wagstaff prime.

"If p and q are positive integers," - this is the given data about variables p and q. There are both positive integers. We don't know whether they are prime or not. They can take any positive integer value.

"is p a Wagstaff prime?" - this is the question asked.

Hence, q = 1 and p =1 are perfectly valid values.
_________________

p=(2^q+1)/3, when q is another prime some guys are selecting 1 but q is not a prime, thus it initially doesn't satisfy the condition. we must start with a q prime to get to a p prime... very confusing question...

hi, the Q says "A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p=((2^q)+1)/3, when q is another prime."... this means that if the conditions are met, that is, p and q are prime and p=((2^q)+1)/3, then p is a Wagstaff prime.

This does not mean that other numbers cannot satisfy this condition or any one satisfying the condition has to be prime..

I think your query meant this only
_________________

Re: A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that p = [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Sep 2017, 14:54

pratikshr wrote:

A Wagstaff prime is a prime number p such that \(p=\frac{2^q + 1}{3}\), when q is another prime. If p and q are positive integers, is p a Wagstaff prime?

Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT, as two different values satisfy the equation: p = q = 1 (which is not prime) and p = q = 3 (which is prime). Simplify statement (2): 30=1, and 1∗3=3, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given. ((23)+1)3 = 93=3, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).

This last clause"when q is another prime" limits q to a prime number. Thus the answer is D.

If q does not need to be prime, then the question should not state "when q is another prime".

Bad question. Open to interpretation.
_________________