Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division : GMAT Data Sufficiency (DS)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 Feb 2017, 09:01

### 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

# Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 430 [2] , given: 0

Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 18:29
2
KUDOS
54
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:16) correct 53% (01:39) wrong based on 931 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division X or division Y, but not both. If each division has some part time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part-time employees greater for division X than for Company Z?

(1) the ratio of the number of full time employees to the number of part-time employees is less for division Y than for Company Z

(2) More than half of the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X, and more than half of the part-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division Y
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Bunuel on 29 Oct 2013, 05:49, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [13] , given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2007, 02:00
13
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division X or division Y, but not both. If each division has
some part time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part-time employees
greater for division X than for Company Z?

1) the ratio of the number of full time employees to the number of part-time employees is less for division Y
than for Company Z

2) More than half of the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X, and more than half of the
part-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division Y

D for me.

let's assume the following:
f1 = nb FT employee for div X
p1 = nb PT employee for div X
f2 = nb FT employee for div Y
p2 = nb PT employee for div Y

We are asked to show that:
f1/p1 > (f1+ f2)/(p1 + p2)
develop this inequation and we get:
f1p2 > f2p1

Stat.1 says: f2/p2 less then (f1+f2) divided by (p1+p2), develop it and we get f1p2 > f2p1 => stat.1 sufficient

stat.2 says: f1>f2 & p2>p1, multiply this and we get:
f1p2 > f2p1 => stat.2 is sufficient

Ans. is D

ps: i had problems posting this because of the inequations that are interpreted as CODE by the program
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2007, 08:32
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I think I understand A now. even w/o setting up equations, I think I can deduce that b/c the ratio of FT/PT for Y is less than Z then FT/PT for X is going to be greater than Y.

Essentially the question is asking is FT greater for X and is the PT greater for Y.

Ex/ X: FTx/PTx = 6/5 Y: FTy/PTy 1/3

FTx/PTx > FTx+FTy/PTx+PTy ---> process of elimination thru subtraction yields

Is (FTx)(PTy)> (FTy)(PTx)?

S1:
If we do set up equations then we get: FTx+FTy/PTx+PTy > FTy/PTy

which when worked out similar to the equation above yields:
(PTy)(FTx)> (FTy)(PTx) the same as the above so Suff.

S2: No need for equations here. We can answer the question from our rephrased question.

Since MORE than half of the employees at Z are FT under X and more than half are of the employees at Z are PT under Y. Then this answers the question that is the ratio for X:

FTx/PTx> FTx+FTy/PTx+PTy. B/c the FTx is > the the PTx.

Let me know if my logic is correct. I think the nature of this question just spooked me and I just guessed.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 920
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 346 [5] , given: 123

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 06:48
5
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I think no point solving this one. Use guesswork

In the weighted average if ratio (full time / part time) increases in division X, the ratio automatically decreases in division Y to keep the weighted average (ratio) same for company Z. This reasoning is for Statement 2)

The same can be applied intuitively to Statement 1) Hence both will be sufficient.

I will guess D after glancing for 60 secs.

Q))Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either Division X or Division Y, but not both. If each division
has some part-time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part-time
employees greater for Division X than for Company Z?
(1) The ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part-time employees is less for Division Y
than for Company Z.
(2) More than half the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X, and more than half of
the part-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division Y.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [6] , given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 18:12
6
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I dont understand why you have to solve in 60 seconds and guess. You can take 90 seconds and be sure.

Yes %Full-Z will be a weighted average of %Full-X and %Full-Y. So either X>Z>Y or X<Z<Y, Z will always be in the middle.

So (1) is enough, as if Y<Z, then 'X must >Z'

For 2 we see that X has more full time and less part time than Y, therefore X>Y, and by extension also X>Z.

So both are enough,(D)
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1672
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 522 [8] , given: 36

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 21:05
8
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I trudged through this for a while, and I can see now why it was not necessary:

PX + PY + FX + FY = Total

PX+PY = PZ

FX + FY = FZ

So the question is asking: FX/PX > (FZ)/(PZ)

From 1 : FY/(PY) < (FZ)/(PZ)

=> PZ * FY < FZ * PY

=> PZ ( FZ - FX) < FZ(PZ - PX)

=> PZ * FZ - PZ * FX < PZ*FZ - PX * FZ

=> PX * FZ < PZ * FX

=> FZ/PZ < FX/PX, so sufficient

From 2: FX > (FX + FY) /2 and PY > (PY + PX)/2

=> FX > FY and PY > PX

=> FX * PY > FY * PX

=> FX ( PZ - PX) > (FZ-FX)*PX

=> FX*PZ - FX*PX > FZ * PX - FX*PX

=> FX/PX > FZ/PZ, so sufficient

_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1672
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 522 [1] , given: 36

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 21:11
1
KUDOS
@bostonrb

For 2 we see that X has more full time and less part time than Y, therefore X>Y, and by extension also X>Z.

jsu to calrify, are you saying that For x -> (Higher numerator)/(lower denominator) > For Y -> (Lower numerator)/(higher denominator) ?
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 21:29
1
KUDOS
Pretty much. What you wrote for denominators is accurate in terms of the ratio FT:PT, which is what the question is asking about.

In my post I referred to %Full Time, and although the relationship still stands, the lower/higher denominator would not be accurate for that because the denominator in that case would be FT+PT, not PT. Just ignore this caveat if its confusing.
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2011
Posts: 755
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 119 [1] , given: 42

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2011, 14:55
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Lets say

Division X - Fulltime Employee's Fx
Partime Employee's Px

Division Y - Fulltime Employee's Fy
Partime Employee's Py

Total Full Time Employee's F = Fx+Fy
Total Part Time Emplyee's P = Px+Py

Rephrasing Given all they are asking is Fx/Px > (Fx+Fy)/(Px+Py) ? = > Fx/Px > Fy/Py?

1. Fy/Py < (Fx+Fy)/(Px+Py)

cross multiplying and solving this we get Fy/Py < Fx/Px , thats exactly what you had to find. So sufficient

2. Fx> Fy
Py> Px

Fx/Px Fy/Py
so division x has a bigger numerator than division y
and a small numerator than division y.

=> Fx/Px > Fy/Py

Sufficient

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 920
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 346 [0], given: 123

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2011, 15:08
Lets say ratio was initially 1:1 for Z and for the divisions X 1:1 and for Y 1:1

Now I make the ratio for X as 1:4. Since X is 1:4 then Y will become 4:1 So that the weighted ratio is still 1:1. The same is true vice-versa.

So basically the DS is based on truism.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2011, 15:25
I dont think you understand the meaning of 'weighted' average. You are assuming X and Y have the same size/weight
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 920
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 346 [0], given: 123

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2011, 15:34
Pardon me. a) ratios are fractions and not certain numbers and b) there is no statement - saying one division is superior over the other. I dont know what you mean by weight.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7187
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2171

Kudos [?]: 14046 [1] , given: 222

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2011, 18:38
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Actually, both of you are using exactly the same concept. You are just applying it differently.
bostonrb has depicted the use of weighted averages to solve it, gmat1220 is using it intuitively to solve the question and of course both of you are correct...

Quote gmat1220:
Lets say ratio was initially 1:1 for Z and for the divisions X 1:1 and for Y 1:1

Now I make the ratio for X as 1:4. Since X is 1:4 then Y will become 4:1 So that the weighted ratio is still 1:1.

This just means we are considering weights even if we are showing it in the form of ratios.

According to statement 1, Full:Part for Y is less than that for Z, it means fraction of Full time employees (Full/Total) is less in Y as compared to Z. Hence to get a higher fraction in Z, X must have an even higher fraction of Full time employees (Full/Total)
So if one group has a smaller Full:Part ratio, the other group must have a bigger Full:Part ratio.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 17 Mar 2011 Posts: 17 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0 Re: ratios [#permalink] ### Show Tags 18 Mar 2011, 19:10 Actually... I did not use weights, just that z will always be between x and y regardless of their weights. Dont mean to be rude but you gotta go read up on weights too, because you also dont understand them. e.g. If you make the ratio of X as 1:4 as gmat1220 says, it is completely INCORRECT to say that Y's becomes 4:1. And this is because of weights. z= weightX*AverageX+weightY*AverageY. NOT (AverageX+AverageY)/2 Belie' dat Director Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing. Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business Joined: 03 Feb 2011 Posts: 920 Followers: 14 Kudos [?]: 346 [0], given: 123 Re: ratios [#permalink] ### Show Tags 18 Mar 2011, 19:21 Karishma, I didn't do math in this question. So let me throw numbers 20:40 initially for company Z Let's change ratio of div X to 10:10 then the ratio of div Y becomes 10:30. But yes the intuition was right If 40:40 initially for company Z Let's change ratio of div X to 10:30 then ratio of Y becomes 30:10 Pls verify. Thanks for confirming Posted from my mobile device Posted from my mobile device Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7187 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2171 Kudos [?]: 14046 [3] , given: 222 Re: ratios [#permalink] ### Show Tags 19 Mar 2011, 04:59 3 This post received KUDOS Expert's post 2 This post was BOOKMARKED Don't worry. I understand weighted average. What is intriguing is that we use these concepts often without even meaning to use them. When I say 'he is using weights', it means the general concept of 'weighted averaging' Let me give you an example: I have two solutions X and Y, 1 lt each, of wine and water. Solution X has wine:water in the ratio 2:3. I mix these two solutions to get wine:water ratio in the mixture as 1:1. What is wine:water in Y? Guess what, the ratio of wine:water in Y is 3:2. You can do it in various ways Say working with concentration on wine: 1/2 = (2/5 * 1 + x*1)/2 x = 3/5 or we can simply say that wine in X is 40%, so wine in Y must be 60% to get 50% in mixture. This is averaging (or more generically weighted averaging... ) Here the weights are the same.... But the thing to note is that it doesn't matter whether we have the weights or now because due to averaging, the mixture will have concentration of wine in between X and Y. If one understands this, one may not need to use any math and do it intuitively. Others may use the equations above to arrive at the same conclusion. gmat1220, I believe, was using a generic example to explain why his intuition said what it did. If you want to get a ratio of 1:1 in the combined mixture and one mixture has a ratio of 1:4, the other will have 4:1 provided they both have equal weights (but we don't have to worry about the weights since eventually they do not matter in our question) So basically, it is the same general concept of weighted averages. @gmat1220: I hope this answers your question too. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 178
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 131 [1] , given: 8

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2011, 05:33
1
KUDOS
Its an average weight problem .Have a look at an awesome article by Stacey (MGMT)
http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/01/26/breaking-down-gmatprep-average-arithmetic-problems
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 457
Location: Texas
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

30 May 2011, 21:05
Cant this be solved using fact and logic?

we know that company z, division x, division y each has both full time and part time employees.
There are no fractions , -ve number or 0 possibilities here.
Q is if FTX/PTX > FTY/PTY is true?

if it can be deduced that if FTZ/PTZ > FTY/PTY is true than Q is true.
Also for the Q condition to be true, company Z should have more full time employees in div X than div Y (i.e. in Q - num of left hand side should be higher than number of right hand side) and more part time employees in company Y than div X (i.e. in Q - denorminator of right hand side should be higher than denominatior of left hand side).

Both the statements gives very clear idea of the Q condition to be true.
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1672
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 522 [1] , given: 36

### Show Tags

31 May 2011, 03:46
1
KUDOS
@agdimple333

Please read this post, and the post from Ron Purewal for a conceptual explanation :

http://www.beatthegmat.com/ratios-t10513.html
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 898
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 1088 [0], given: 543

Re: Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 23:19
Is there an alternative explanation for this question? What would be the difficulty level of this question?
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Re: Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either division   [#permalink] 06 Aug 2013, 23:19

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Each employee of Company C is either from Division X 2 18 Jan 2011, 23:03
159 Each employee of a certain task force is either a manager or 37 18 May 2010, 07:01
27 Each employee of a certain task force is either a manager or 18 25 Mar 2009, 10:07
Each employee of Company Z is an employee of either Division 7 31 Aug 2008, 10:58
Each employee on a certain task force is either a manager or 2 08 Apr 2007, 08:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by