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 Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

can any one tell me why (1) and (2) are insufficient ? (1) shows that the set is …. -16,-8,-4,-,2,4,8,16….( there is no 12 here) so it is sufficient. (2) shows that the set is …. -27,-9,-3,3,9,27,…… ( there is no 12 here) so it is sufficient. so the answer is D … each alone is sufficient.

any explanation please? thanks

How does statement 1 show that 12 is not in the set? All statement 1 tells you is that 2 is there and hence -2 is there. We don't know anything about other elements. How did you get 4, 8 etc. We are not given that if 2 is there, only powers of 2 will be there.

------------------ Sorry but your explanation is not clear. and i got these numbers " -16,-8,-4,-,2,4,8,16…" after applying the statement (1) on the equation (i) and (ii). what i understood is that if you applied statement (1) "2 in K", then you will get this set of numbers " -16,-8,-4,-,2,4,8,16…" which do not include 12. the same apply on statement (2). could you explain what is the flaw in my understanding.

Thanks

Given: (i) If x is in K, then -x is in K, and (ii) if each of x and y is in K, then xy is in K Stmnt 1: 2 is in K

This implies 2, -2, -4 (2*-2), -8 (2*-4), 8 (-2*-4), etc are in the set. 4 will not be there. But how do you know that no other elements are there in the set? Could we have a set like this: {12, 2, 24, -2, -12, -24 ...} Does it satisfy all 3 conditions given above? Yes. The set {2, -2, -4, -8, ...} satisfies all 3 conditions too.

Hence we don't know what the set actually looks like. Just because the set has 2 doesn't mean it cannot have 12.
_________________

Re: K is a set of numbers such that (i) If x is in K, then -x [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Sep 2015, 03:45

Hi Bunuel,

Could please post the correct question . I think there is power missing in the main question here . Please re-post the correct question .
_________________

K is a set of numbers such that (i) If x is in K, then -x [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jul 2016, 10:19

K is a set of numbers such that (i) If x is in K, then -x is in K, and (ii) if each of x and y is in K, then xy is in K

Is 12 in K?

(1) 2 is in K According to the restrictions if 2 (i.e " x") is in Set K then -2(i.e. "-x") should also be in Set K since 2 and -2 are technically different numbers you can consider them x and y. Now (xy)= 2 * -2 = -4 should be there. Since -4 is there then its negative counterpart should be there too i.e "-(-4)" =4 and so on K={2,-2, -4,4,-8,8,16,--16,32,-32,........} Insufficient , we don not know apart from 2 and it's derivative what other numbers are inside Set K.

(2) 3 is in K According to the restrictions if 3 is in k then -3 should also be in K K={3,-3,-9,9,27,-27,81,-81.. } Insufficient , we do not know apart from 2 and it's derivative what other numbers are inside K

Merge both K={2,-2,3,-3,4,-4,6,-6,12,-12,24,-24,27,-27...}

SUFFICIENT

ANSWER IS C
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly. FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 19 Sep 2016, 08:29, edited 1 time in total.

Re: K is a set of numbers such that (i) If x is in K, then -x [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Sep 2016, 05:52

Bunuel wrote:

afyl128 wrote:

My First post

K is a set of numbers such that

(i) If x is in K, then -x is in K, and (ii) if each of x and y is in K, then xy is in K

Is 12 in K?

(1) 2 is in K (2) 3 is in K

for (1) know that 2, -2 is in K for (2) know that 3, -3 is in K Together have [-3, -2, 2, 3, 6]

So I would say neither is sufficient??

Hi, and welcome to the club. Below is the solution for your problem.

(1) 2 is in K --> according to (i) -2 is n K --> according to (ii) -2*2=-4 is in K --> according to (i) -(-4)=4 is in K and so on. Thus we know that 2, -2, -4, 4, 8, -8, 16, -16, ... are in K, so basically powers of 2 and their negative pairs. Is 12 in K? We don't know. Not sufficient.

(2) 3 is in K --> according to (i) -3 is n K --> according to (ii) -3*3=-9 is in K --> according to (i) -(-9)=9 is in K and so on. Thus we know that 3, -3, -9, 9, 27, -27, 81, -81, ... are in K, so basically powers of 3 and their negative pairs. Is 12 in K? We don't know. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) 4 is in K and from (2) 3 is in K, hence according to (ii) 4*3=12 must also be in K. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it's clear.

When I was working on this questions I understood from statement 1+2 that 12 could be on the set. But as he asks: is 12 in the set? Well I assumed it could be in the set or not, why can I assume the set is not finite? I got a similar Gmat question wrong for assuming the opposite.

(i) If x is in K, then -x is in K, and (ii) if each of x and y is in K, then xy is in K

Is 12 in K?

(1) 2 is in K (2) 3 is in K

for (1) know that 2, -2 is in K for (2) know that 3, -3 is in K Together have [-3, -2, 2, 3, 6]

So I would say neither is sufficient??

Hi, and welcome to the club. Below is the solution for your problem.

(1) 2 is in K --> according to (i) -2 is n K --> according to (ii) -2*2=-4 is in K --> according to (i) -(-4)=4 is in K and so on. Thus we know that 2, -2, -4, 4, 8, -8, 16, -16, ... are in K, so basically powers of 2 and their negative pairs. Is 12 in K? We don't know. Not sufficient.

(2) 3 is in K --> according to (i) -3 is n K --> according to (ii) -3*3=-9 is in K --> according to (i) -(-9)=9 is in K and so on. Thus we know that 3, -3, -9, 9, 27, -27, 81, -81, ... are in K, so basically powers of 3 and their negative pairs. Is 12 in K? We don't know. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) 4 is in K and from (2) 3 is in K, hence according to (ii) 4*3=12 must also be in K. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it's clear.

When I was working on this questions I understood from statement 1+2 that 12 could be on the set. But as he asks: is 12 in the set? Well I assumed it could be in the set or not, why can I assume the set is not finite? I got a similar Gmat question wrong for assuming the opposite.

The stem gives clear description of the set and it's not saying that the set is finite.
_________________

Re: K is a set of numbers such that (i) If x is in K, then -x [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Nov 2017, 09:45

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.
_________________