If r and s are positive integers, is r/s an integer?

(1) Every factor of s is also a factor of r. If every factor of s is also factor of r, then in fraction r/s, s will just be reduced and we get an integer. Sufficient.

(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r. The powers of prime factors of s could be higher than powers of prime factors of r. eg 25/125=1/5 not an integer. Not sufficient.

Answer: A.

Hope it's clear.
_________________

r and s are positive integers.

\(\frac{r}{s}\) is an integer?

Statement 1

Every factor of s is also a factor of r

Hence sufficient

Statement 2

every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r

case 1
r = 10 therefore prime factors 2 * 5
s = 10 therefore prime factors 2 * 5

\(\frac{r}{s} = \frac{10}{10}= integer\)

case 2
r = 10 therefore prime factors 2 * 5
s= 20 therefore prime factors 2 * 5

\(\frac{r}{s} = \frac{10}{20}\neq{integer}\)

hence not sufficient

Hence Answer is A

i mean this one
(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r.

There is an example given in my post which satisfies the given condition and doesn't give an integer value of r/s.

(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r. The powers of prime factors of s could be higher than powers of prime factors of r.

For example: if s=5^3 and r=5^2 then every prime of 125 (in fact its only prime 5) IS also a prime of 25 but r/s=25/125 is not an integer.
_________________

What if S>R? It doesn't say that R>S. It just says they are positive integers.

For first statement:
R>S = 20/10 = 2 --> Integer
S>R = 10/20 = .5 --> Not an integer

For the second statement:
R>S = 50/5 = 10 --> Integer
S>R = 5/50 = .5 --> Not an integer

That is why I picked E. Can you please explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Thanks!

For the first statement s cannot be greater than r. If every factor of s is also factor of r, then \(r\geq{s}\). Your example, (r=10 and s=20), is not possible, because 4 is a factor of s but not a factor of r.

Hope it's clear.
_________________

(1) Consider for example \(a = 2\cdot3=6\) and \(b = 2^2\cdot3=12\), so obviously \(a\) is not a multiple of \(b.\)
If \(a = 12\) and \(b = 6\), then of course \(a\) is a multiple of \(b.\)
Not sufficient.

(2) \(b\) is a factor of itself, so it is also a factor of \(a\), which means that \(a\) is a multiple of \(b.\)
Sufficient.

Answer B.
_________________

Basically, the question asks us if s is a factor of r.


1) This is significant, because we are told something about every factor of s. Let's say the products of the factors of s = n, then 1) gives us n*r.. is n*r/n an integer? Of course.. So 1) is sufficient

2) This only tells us a fraction of the information that 1) tells us, since 2) restricts the factors to primes.. But we don't know if s has other factors that are NOT shared by r, and thus 2) is insufficient..


So A is correct

Hi Bunuel,

If we look at the two statements above:
(1) Every factor of s is also a factor of r.
(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r.

I'm having a hard time differentiating the two statements. I realize that one is talking about PF and one is talking about All Factors, but how can we assume that in statement 2, S could have it's factors raised to a higher value. Isn't the verbiage between 1 and 2 identical?

No, they are not identical.

(2) says that r and s have the same primes but this does not mean that r and s have the same factors. For, example, 2, 4, 8, 16, ..., 2^n all have the same prime: 2. But they certainly do not share all their factors: the factors of 8 (1, 2, 4, 8) are not the same as the factors of 4 (1, 2, 4).

Does this make sense?
_________________

Hi, I answered E to this question because I thought that "every factor of s is also factor of r" does not mean that every factor of r is also a factor of s. and that is r (6) and s (4) could be an answer: every factor of s (1 and 2) are factors of r but not all factors of r are necessarily factors of s. what am i missreading? thanks!!

If s = 4 and r = 6, then 4, a factor of s = 4, is NOT a factor of r = 6.
_________________

For condition #1, remember that this is just a fancy way of indicating that r > s.

Attached is a visual that should help.

_________________

My suggestion: combine set properties with number properties. It becomes more intelligible.

For statement 1, how do we know that we won't run into a similar problem with statement two in which we could have 2^2*3^2/2^3*3^3?

Hello

We CANNOT take your example, where r = 2^2 * 3^2 and s = 2^3 * 3^3, as this will violate the condition in statement 1.

Statement 1 says that every factor of s is also a factor of r. But if s has more powers of 2 and/or 3 than r, then s will have some factors which are not factors of r. Eg, in your example, 2^3, 3^3, 2^3 * 3^2 .. etc.. are factors of s but they are not factors of r.

So if we go by statement 1 condition, if all factors of s have to be factors of r also, then all powers of all prime numbers contained in s, will also be contained in r. Hence r/s has to be an integer.

In 1st case If s=8 and r=12 , then r/s doesn't give an integer. In this case A is not sufficient.
Am I right?

If you were right then the OA would not be A. So, there must be a mistake in your reasoning. s = 8 and r = 12 does not satisfy the first statement which says: EVERY factor of s is also a factor of r. One of the factors of s = 8, is 8 itself (recall that an integer is a factor of itself) and 8 is not a factor of r = 12.
_________________

it matters which one is greater. if s is greater than r, it's impossible for r/s to be a whole number (it will automatically be a fraction less than 1).

first, rephrase the question: is s a factor of r? or, is r a multiple of s? or, is r divisible by s? etc.
you shouldn't leave the question in its original form; the original form is just sort of ugly.

(1)
here's the easiest way to handle this one:
s is a factor of itself.
therefore, since every factor of s (including s itself) is a factor of r, s is a factor of r.
sufficient.

you can do this part with a whole lot of song and dance involving prime numbers, but i like this argument because it's simple and elegant.

(2)
this just means that r and s are combinations of the same prime factors, but you don't know how many times each of those prime factors appears. for instance, 10 and 1000 are both made up of 2's and 5's. therefore, (r, s) could be (10, 1000), in which case the answer is 'no', or (1000, 10), in which case the answer is 'yes'.
insufficient.

ans = a

Posted from my mobile device
_________________