Can a certain rectangular sheet of glass be positioned on a

Does anyone else find this question misleading? The 'can' in Can a certain rectangular sheet of glass be positioned makes it sound like the question is asking whether it's possible to shape a sheet to cover the table and be parallel to the edges with an area of 2,400 square inches. I picked C for this reason.

Hi blessthenoobs,

If the prompt had stated something similar to: "Can a rectangular piece of glass be created....", then I would agree with your interpretation (as that would imply that the piece of glass hasn't been formed yet). Here though, the reference to "a CERTAIN rectangular piece of glass..." implies that we're dealing with a 'fixed entity' (re: the sheet already exists, but we don't know its exact dimensions yet). Based on how the overall prompt is worded, we need to know the exact dimensions of both the glass sheet and the tabletop to answer it; in other versions of this question, we might be able to answer it without knowing the exact dimensions, as long as we knew something about the minimum or maximum possible dimensions.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
_________________

JeffTargetTestPrep @avigordan BrentGMATPrepNow Bunuel EMPOWERgmatRichC what is the role of parallel her? No explanation here has clarified that? Can you tell me a case where the sides will not be parallel given the glass is a rectangle and given that it will cover the table top? EVen if it does not cover the table top, it can still be positioned parallel. And that is why which is the scenario wherein it CANNOT (ever) be positioned parallel given the above info?

IMO, it CAN ALWAYS be positioned parallel becaus eit is a rectangle and not parallelogram. EVen the diagram by Bunuel above is wrong

Hi Elite097,

It's possible that the original wording of the question has been tweaked over the years, but the detail of having the sides of the glass and the sides of the table must be parallel is ultimately irrelevant (as you can find the correct answer by TESTing VALUES). That having been said, the original author (when originally creating the question all those years ago) might have been trying to 'eliminate' the option that you could lay the glass diagonally over the table and still completely cover it.

For example, with a table that is 36 inches by 60 inches, if you place a piece of glass that is 59 inches by 59 inches - with the corresponding sides parallel - the glass will NOT completely cover the table (the glass would be just a little short along the 60-inch axis). However, if you rotate the glass a bit (meaning that the sides would NOT be parallel with the sides of the table), then the glass WOULD completely cover the table.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Contact Rich at: Rich.C@empowergmat.com
_________________

EMPOWERgmatRichC I get your point and now that I think about it , it actually will still not cver the table because the area of the glass will be smaller than the top right? Pls clarify. Even I had a mild affinity to your reasoning before I realised this. Hence also pls give an answer to my previous question in this context

For glass greater than table top, there will always be a way to position parallely so we are only concerned with when dimensions are small but in that case it will never cover table top so what is the utility of introducing 'should be parallel' in the question stem

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.
_________________