Answer should be E. Here is how:

All of the furniture for sale at Al’s Discount Furniture is offered for less than the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP). Once a year, Al’s holds a clearance sale. If Jamie purchased a certain desk during the sale, did she get a discount of more than 50% of Al’s regular price for the desk?

Statement A: Al’s regular price for the desk is \(60%\) , rounded to the nearest percent, of the MSRP of \($2000\).

\(60%\) could be \(59.5%\) or \(60.4%\). We also know that MSRP \(=$2000\)

So there could be \(2\) possible values for the Sale Price. Let \(x\) be the regular price.

\(x=\frac{{59.5}}{100}*2000=1190\)

or
\(x=\frac{{60.4}}{100}*2000=1208\)

We now need the price that Jamie bought it for and Statement A does not provide it... So Insufficient

Statement 2: The sale price was $601 less than Al’s regular price for the desk.

We do not know the regular price so the statement is clearly insufficient.

Statement 1 & 2 Combined:

We know the two possibilities of the Regular price, \(1190\) & \(1208\)

If Jamie bought it for \(1190\) , then YES she did buy it at a discount greater than \(50%\) for obvious reasons.
If Jamie bought it for \(1208\) , then NO she did not buy it at a discount greater than \(50%\) for obvious reasons.

2 different answers even with the statements combined. Hence E

I bet its got something to do with the "rounded to the nearest percent" in stat 1.

is the answer E ? If the 60 was rounded to the nearest percent, that means that the original price would change, and subsequently the sale price would change as well.

yup.. looks like the catch is rounding - it could be anynumber between 59.5 to 60.4

what is OA? and what is the soucre?

Answer C.

Statement 1) This tells us what the price is that Al charges without the sale, but doesn't give any information as the the size of the discount for the clearance sale. Insufficient.

Statement 2) This tells us the size of the discount, but we still don't know the original price Al charges for the item. Insufficient.

Together, we know what Al charged originally as his "regular price" and we know the size of the discount. The price originally is 60% of $2,000, so that's $1,200. If the sale price is $601 less than the normal Al's price, that's greater than 50% of Al's price. This is sufficient.

Nope. That's what I thought. But it's a nasty trick question. Read statement 1 carefully.

Ok....I am reading it carefully:

(1) Al’s regular price for the desk is 60%, rounded to the nearest percent, of the MSRP of $2000.

This tells us what Al's regular price for the desk is. It doesn't tell us anything about what she bought it for.

I think I know what the trick is. We're told it's rounded to the nearst percent...which means Al's price could be 60.4999999999999999999%. This would mean that his price is anything less than 60.5% of the MSRP. 60.5% is $1210 so $12,09.99 is the most he can charge for the desk.

Answer must be E then because even knowing the dollar amount of the discount means that $1209.99 - $601 is not a 50% dsicount, but because it's rounded, the % could also be 59.5%, which would mean $601 is greater than a 50% discount.

Is this the trick?

Good one Jallen! the discount could be anything n between 59.5% to 60.4999999... %
If we use these extremes to calculate the total discount would be
below 50% in case we use 59.5 %
above 50% in case we use 60.4999999... %.

thus both statements are insufficient.

Let X be the MSRP, Y be the Regular Price in Al's, and Z be the discounted prive in Al's

Given X > Y > Z
Task: find out if Z < 0.5 * Y

(1) alone is NOT sufficient. Because it only tells:
Y = (0.595 to 0.604) * X
X = 2000
So, Y = 1190 to 1208
Without any infomation about Z, we cannot conclude Z < 0.5 * Y

(2) alone is NOT sufficient. It only tells:
Z = Y - 601

(1) & (2) together is NOT sufficient
When Y = 1190, Z = 589
Z / Y = 589/1190 < 50%
When Y = 1208, Z = 607
Z / Y = 607/1208 > 50%

So Ans is E

You all seem so smart coming in after I throw myself under the bus with the wrong answer at first Just kidding. It's a good question to use to remind us that every single word/phrase means something in these questions and we can't ignore them.

Good question!

Thanks. Under a time pressure, who cares about the implications of "rounded to the nearest percent"... I know I didn't..

just remember that MGMAT questions are harder than the real questions on the GMAT. I'm not sure how it really helps us to get caught by this question. It's really about reading and interpreting the words of the question. I've found GMAT problems to be more straight forward and not tricky like this one.

Allen

both statements are insufficient however since $600 is more than "less than 1200" we know that Jamie paid less that 50%

I see where the trick is!!!
(1) - regular price, rounded TO THE NEAREST PERCENT is 60% of 2000, or 1200+. - alone is not sufficient.
(2) sale price is 601 less than regular price - alone is not sufficient.

1+2
if 60% -> then yes, he got more than 50% discount of the regular price
but what if the price is 1202? in this case, he did not buy at more than 50% discount.

suppose 1202 is regular price.
that is 1202/2000 or 601/1000 or 60.1%. 60.1 rounded to the nearest percent is 60%.
so E it is.

OG Solution

In order to determine the percent discount received by Jamie, we need to know two things: the regular price of the desk and the sale price of the desk. Alternatively, we could calculate the percent discount from the price reduction and either the regular price or the sale price.

(1) INSUFFICIENT: This statement tells us the range ($0 to $1,199.99) of the regular price of the desk at Al’s, but provides no information about how much Jamie actually paid for the desk during the annual sale.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: This statement tells us how much the price of the desk was reduced during the sale, but provides no information about the regular price. For example, if the regular price was $6,000, then the discount was only 10%. On the other hand, if the regular price was $601, then the discount was nearly 100%.

(1) AND (2) SUFFICIENT: Combined, we know that Al's regular price of the desk is less than $1,200, and that the size of the discount is $600. The question is whether that discount is greater than 50%:

Is ($600)/(Less than $1,200) > 50%?

For any positive number less than $1,200, the answer is yes.

The correct answer is C.

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.
_________________