LaurenGol
To confirm, when GMAT says 3 prime factors we must assume distinct prime factors?
The GMAT either always or almost always says "distinct prime factors" anyway (the question in this thread is not an official question), but if a question did only say "x has 3 prime factors", that means the same thing as "x has three distinct prime factors". If you think of a number like 12 = (2^2)(3), it is divisible by precisely two primes, 2 and 3, so it has two prime divisors (or factors). There's no logical reason to count the '2' twice just because it has an exponent.
If you think of similar sentences, like "the positive integer x has 12 divisors" or "the positive integer x has 8 even divisors", we always mean "distinct divisors" or "distinct even divisors". We don't double-count any of the divisors, even if they might have an exponent when you break x down - for example, when counting the divisors of 48, you don't count "4" twice just because (4)(4)(3) = (4^2)(3) = 48. We only count the '4' once.
There's a historical reason so many prep books seem to get this point wrong (or at least I suspect this is the reason). There is one very old official GMAT question that asks about something known in Number Theory as the "length" of a number. When you compute "length", you do double-count repeated primes - the length of a number is just how many primes (not necessarily distinct) you need to multiply together to make that number. But that question defines "length" in the question itself, (you do not need to learn what it is) and explicitly tells you to count prime factors even when they're not distinct. It's the only official question I've ever seen where you do that, but I've seen many GMAT books and forum discussions over the last ten years that claim you're supposed to count repeated primes when asked to count "prime factors", and that's just not the case.
But as I said above, it's very unlikely you'll need to worry about this on the actual test!