Last visit was: 13 Jun 2024, 23:52 It is currently 13 Jun 2024, 23:52
Close
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
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
Own Kudos [?]: 3232 [168]
Given Kudos: 29
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93696
Own Kudos [?]: 631600 [28]
Given Kudos: 82280
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [22]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Status:<strong>Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.</strong>
Posts: 2279
Own Kudos [?]: 3626 [7]
Given Kudos: 235
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
7
Kudos
Bunuel don't you think the question is ambiguous?

it does not clearly mention that the overall p1 includes the tax or not. We can not assume whether he can buy inclusive of tax or exclusive. What do you think.

In either way the answer will be E, but I was little confused before starting the question.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93696
Own Kudos [?]: 631600 [4]
Given Kudos: 82280
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
gurpreetsingh wrote:
Bunuel don't you think the question is ambiguous?

it does not clearly mention that the overall p1 includes the tax or not. We can not assume whether he can buy inclusive of tax or exclusive. What do you think.

In either way the answer will be E, but I was little confused before starting the question.


Yes, the question is indeed ambiguous (at least for me too). Though you are also right in saying that it doesn't really matters and either way the answer is E.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Own Kudos [?]: 67 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.7
WE:Consulting (Insurance)
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
1
Kudos
It is clear that 1 or 2 individually cannot answer.

Both 1 and 2 combined, we have from 2) that p1t1 > p2t2 and from 1) we have t1 > t2, which means that p1 >= p2. Hence p1 + (p1t1/100) > p2 + (p2t2/100) can be determined. This is my understanding. Please let me know if it is otherwise.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 235
Own Kudos [?]: 213 [3]
Given Kudos: 84
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
3
Kudos
dineesha wrote:
It is clear that 1 or 2 individually cannot answer.

Both 1 and 2 combined, we have from 2) that p1t1 > p2t2 and from 1) we have t1 > t2, which means that p1 >= p2. Hence p1 + (p1t1/100) > p2 + (p2t2/100) can be determined. This is my understanding. Please let me know if it is otherwise.


p1 >= p2 - is not a correct assumption.

Consider Case1 - (t1, t2) = (100, 10) & (p1, p2 ) = (3,2)
Here, t1 > t2 and p1t1 > p2t2 and p1 > p2

Consider Case2 - (t1, t2) = (100, 10) & (p1, p2 ) = (2,5)
Here as well, t1 > t2 and p1t1 > p2t2 but p1 < p2

Hope it helps! Cheers!
P.S. - Always try to substitute few values and test in these kind of scenario based questions.
Director
Director
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Status:Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Posts: 606
Own Kudos [?]: 4623 [1]
Given Kudos: 235
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
1
Kudos
\(p1 = c1 + \frac{t1}{100}*c1\) => \(t1 = \frac{100(p1 - c1 )}{c1}\)

\(p2 = c2 + \frac{t2}{100}*c2\) => \(t2 = \frac{100(p2 - c2 )}{c2}\)

\(1) t1 > t2\)

\(\frac{100(p1 - c1 )}{c1} > \frac{100(p2 - c2 )}{c2}\) => \(\frac{p1}{c1} > \frac{p2}{c2}\)

Not sufficient to tell p1 > p2.

\(1) p1t1 > p2t2\)

\(p1*\frac{100(p1 - c1 )}{c1} > p2*\frac{100(p2 - c2 )}{c2}\) => \(\frac{p1^2}{c1} > \frac{p2^2}{c2}\)

Not sufficient to tell p1 > p2.

As option 2 also includes option 1; both options together are not sufficient.

Ans: E
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 186
Own Kudos [?]: 454 [2]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: United States (NC)
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Hi ,

here are my two cents for this question

In county A let \(p_1\) be price before tax, \(t_1\)be the tax
then total price in county A is say M=\(p_1\)+\(p_1t_1\)
In county B let \(p_2\) be price before tax, \(t_2\)be the tax
then total price in county B is say N= \(p_2\)+\(p_2t_2\)

We are0 asked if M>N
To answer this question we need to know that tax rates at each county, and base price at each county / or we need to know the ratio of prices and ratio of taxes to come to conclusion about the comparison of prices.

Now Stmt 1:\(t_1\)> \(t_2\). OK we can have two case results from this.

Case a:\(p_1\)>\(p_2\) Say \(p_1\)= 150, \(p_2=100,\)\(t_1=20\), \(t_2=10\), then we have
\(t_1\)> \(t_2\)
M= 150+30 & N=100+10. (Here we have\(p_1t_1\)> \(p_2t_2\), or 30>10)
So M=180,N=110
We have from this that M>N

Case b:\(p_1\)<\(p_2\) Say \(p_1\)= 100, \(p_2=150,\)\(t_1=20\), \(t_2=10\), then we have
\(t_1\)> \(t_2\)
M= 100+20 & N=150+15. (Here we have\(p_1t_1\)> \(p_2t_2\), or 20>15)
So M=120,N=165
We have from this that M<N

So Stm1 Insufficient

Now Stmt 2: \(p_1t_1\)> \(p_2t_2\). We can have several cases from this , however if we refer our stmt 1 (the highlighted portion ) we already have \(p_1t_1\)> \(p_2t_2\). and we did get different answers on each case.

So Stm2 Insufficient
Other cases except those not discussed in statement 1 can be
Say \(p_1=p_2\) & \(t_1\)> \(t_2\)

Say Say \(p_1=p_2\) =150 and \(t_1\)= 20 and \(t_2\)=10

we will have M= 150+30 &N= 150+10 so 180>160or M>N

Say \(p_1>p_2\) & \(t_1\)= \(t_2\) Say \(t_1\)= \(t_2\) = 20 Say\(p_1\)= 150 and \(p_2\)= 100,then we have
M= 150+30
N=100+20
we have M>N



Now if we combine both statements , there is no new information, Hence E

Probus
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.


You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Hello Bunuel
Is there any chance the tax to be 0% in B (in this regard)?
Thanks__
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93696
Own Kudos [?]: 631600 [0]
Given Kudos: 82280
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Asad wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.


You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Hello Bunuel
Is there any chance the tax to be 0% in B (in this regard)?
Thanks__


Why not? Nothing in the question restricts that and so we can have some tax heaven state.
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Quote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2

Thanks for the previous response.
One more thing:
Leo can buy SAME computers by p2 dollars. Are the cost of computers considered adding tax or without adding tax? Here, There could be 2 scenario:
Assuming......
State A:
p1=$50; tax (p1)=$70--->Total $120
State B:
p2=$100; tax (p2)=$$20-->Total $120

Or,
After adding tax (don't know exactly the tax):
Total cost of computers in State A=$120
Total cost of computers in State B=$120

Which one is the real scenario of this DS?
Thanks__
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Dec 2019
Posts: 73
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 659
Location: India
Schools: LBS MFA "23
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.


You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.



\(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B.

I DIDNT GET THIS PART. How can we conclude that? it maybe because the base price in state A is much higher than in state B
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93696
Own Kudos [?]: 631600 [2]
Given Kudos: 82280
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Poojita wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.


You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.



\(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B.

I DIDNT GET THIS PART. How can we conclude that? it maybe because the base price in state A is much higher than in state B


A price multiples by the sales tax is the amount of the tax. For example, if p1 = $100 and t1 = 10%, then p1*t1=$10 is the amount of the tax to be paid in dollars. So, \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) simply means that the amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Posts: 472
Own Kudos [?]: 28 [0]
Given Kudos: 5901
Location: United Kingdom
Send PM
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Hi could anyone help explain here that statement 2 is clearly mentioned that (2) p1∗t1>p2∗t2. Therefore even though p2 might be greater than p1 in extreme case but it's asking for total cost of the computer ( which mean including tax). Therefore why is statement 2 can not be sufficient? Thanks

Originally posted by Kimberly77 on 10 Apr 2022, 01:23.
Last edited by Kimberly77 on 26 Apr 2022, 00:54, edited 2 times in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Posts: 472
Own Kudos [?]: 28 [0]
Given Kudos: 5901
Location: United Kingdom
Send PM
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Thanks sarathy, why do you have to add a and b to ac+a > bd+b? Thanks

Think I got it now. a is the price itself and ac is tax of a. Not sure my understanding is correct? Thanks
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 16
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for \(p_1\) dollars in State A, where the sales tax is \(t_1\) percent, or he can buy the same computer for \(p_2\) dollars in State B, where the sales tax is \(t_2\) percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?


(1) \(t_1 > t_2\)

(2) \(p_1t_1 > p_2t_2\)


same computer ???????? not used by one one in their assertion
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2020
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.

You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

­
Bunuel

I have 2 things here:-
1. Why are we assuming tax is over the price? According to me, price should be inclusive of tax since question mentions that that "Leo can buy at P1", i.e. he would have to pay P1 cash to buy the computer. 
2. Also, why are we assuming base price (i.e. exclusing sales tax) of the two computers separate in two states? The question mentions that the price of the same computer in other state. So, according to me, since the computer model is same, the base price in both states is same and the sales tax rates are different leading to differen overall price P1 and P2.

When I take these two conditions, my answer comes out to be D.

I think the question is ambiguous.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93696
Own Kudos [?]: 631600 [0]
Given Kudos: 82280
Send PM
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Expert Reply
parampreet1997 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Orange08 wrote:
Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sales tax is t1 percent,or he can buy the same computer for p2 dollars in State B, where the sales tax is t2 percent. Is the total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B?
10
(1) t1 > t2
(2) p1t1 > p2t2


I chose B. However, OA is different. please explain.

You can solve this question algebraically, but think number plugging is better this time.

Total cost = p*(1+t/100).

(1) \(t_1>t_2\) --> no info about the prices. Not sufficient.

(2) \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2\) --> amount of tax in $ is more in A than in B. Now if \(t_1>0%\) and \(t_2=0%\) then given statement works for any prices of computers (any positive \(p_1\) and \(p_2\)). So not sufficient, to answer whether total cost of the computer greater in State A than in State B.

(1)+(2) Again if \(t_1=10%>t_2=0%\) (statement 1) then \(p_1*t_1>p_2*t_2=0\) (statement 2), but from this we can not establish relationship between total cost of the computer in State A and in State B. For example if \(p_1=p_2\), then total cost in A would be higher than in B (because total cost in B would be just \(p_2\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be higher than \(p_2=p_1\) as \(t_1>0%\)), but if \(p_1=1\) and \(p_2=100\) then total cost in A would be lower than in B (because total cost in B would be \(p_2=100\), as \(t_2=0%\) and in A would be \(p_1*1.1=1.1\) as \(t_1=10%\)). Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

­
Bunuel

I have 2 things here:-
1. Why are we assuming tax is over the price? According to me, price should be inclusive of tax since question mentions that that "Leo can buy at P1", i.e. he would have to pay P1 cash to buy the computer. 
2. Also, why are we assuming base price (i.e. exclusing sales tax) of the two computers separate in two states? The question mentions that the price of the same computer in other state. So, according to me, since the computer model is same, the base price in both states is same and the sales tax rates are different leading to differen overall price P1 and P2.

When I take these two conditions, my answer comes out to be D.

I think the question is ambiguous.

­
1. That's not how sales tax works. It's added to the price. For example, if the price is $100 and the sales tax is 10%, the customer pays $110.

2. Prices can differ between two shops next to each other, so they can obviously differ across state borders.

3. Note that this is an official question, so its wording is as precise as possible.­
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Leo can buy a certain computer for p1 dollars in State A, where the sa [#permalink]
Moderator:
Math Expert
93696 posts