Jason traveled from Chicago to Milwaukee in 30 minutes. What was the a

I don't understand the question. Under the assumptions one would normally make in a question like this, each Statement is sufficient alone. Statement 2 is obviously sufficient (we have the total distance and total time), and Statement 1 can be proven sufficient just by assigning a letter to the total distance and solving the resulting average speed problem (the letter will cancel).

But doing that, the answers you'd get from each Statement are different. So if you're making normal assumptions, the statements turn out to be inconsistent, which can't happen in a real GMAT question. So it's unclear to me if there's an issue with the question design, or if there's meant to be some 'trap' in the question. Trap or not, the wording is problematic anyway - the question asks about the speed of "Jason's car" even though we have no idea, from the wording of the rest of the question, if Jason drove a car at all. Maybe he took a train or a plane or walked from Chicago to Milwaukee. He might have left his car at home, or only drove it to the airport. But if that's the "trap", it's one the GMAT would never use. Or maybe there's meant to be some 'trap' involving stops Jason made along the route, though again that wouldn't be fair to a test taker, since most test takers would very reasonably assume we're meant to ignore any stops, as the question is worded.

So I can't guess the intentions behind the question - maybe it's meant to be an easy problem, and the statements are inadvertently inconsistent. Or maybe it's meant to be a tricky problem, but if so, whatever that trick is supposed to be, the question doesn't seem fair as it is presently worded. I was also confused seeing a distance of 30 miles from Chicago to Milwaukee -- they are further apart than that!