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:

Statement (1) by itself is not sufficient. Multiples of a prime number are not prime except the prime number itself. For example, 3 is prime and its multiples are 3 itself (prime), 6 (not prime), etc.

Statement (2) by itself is not sufficient. The product of two integers can be prime only if one integer is a prime and the other integer is 1. For example \(3=1*3\) is prime, but \(6=3*2\) is not prime.

Statements (1) and (2) combined are not sufficient. If both statements are combined,\(x\) can still be 3 (prime) or 6 (not prime).

Statement (1) by itself is not sufficient. Multiples of a prime number are not prime except the prime number itself. For example, 3 is prime and its multiples are 3 itself (prime), 6 (not prime), etc.

Statement (2) by itself is not sufficient. The product of two integers can be prime only if one integer is a prime and the other integer is 1. For example \(3=1*3\) is prime, but \(6=3*2\) is not prime.

Statements (1) and (2) combined are not sufficient. If both statements are combined,\(x\) can still be 3 (prime) or 6 (not prime).

Answer: E

Thanks for the explanation Bunuel. I missed this example because I didn't consider that it is true to say that a number is a multiple of itself. For example, 3 is a multiple of 3.

In "(2) x is a product of two integers", I was confused with "x is a product of ANY/ONLY two integers". I presupposed that the author meant "ONLY" so question went wrong. Can you please guide how to interpret such questions?
_________________

in my opinion Statement 1 is sufficient: "(1) x is a multiple of a prime number." As Bunuel wrote, a multiple of 3 is 6. If x is a multiple of a prime number it is itself definitely not a prime number --> Sufficient.

Where is the error in my thought? I don't get it...

in my opinion Statement 1 is sufficient: "(1) x is a multiple of a prime number." As Bunuel wrote, a multiple of 3 is 6. If x is a multiple of a prime number it is itself definitely not a prime number --> Sufficient.

Where is the error in my thought? I don't get it...

Thanks!!

Hi, the point which you are missing is the number itself is a multiple.. so 3 is a multiple of 3.. 3*1=3.. that is the reason statement 1 is not suff
_________________

Statement (2) by itself is not sufficient. The product of two integers can be prime only if one integer is a prime and the other integer is 1. For example \(3=1*3\) is prime, but \(6=3*2\) is not prime.

When you say, x is a product of 2 integers, and 3 is represented as 3x1, 6 should be represented as 3x2x1? hence stmt 2 is sufficient since only primes can be represented as product of 2 integers? Please clarify.

Thanks, Alok322
_________________

Kudos is the best way to say Thank you! Please give me a kudos if you like my post

Statement (2) by itself is not sufficient. The product of two integers can be prime only if one integer is a prime and the other integer is 1. For example \(3=1*3\) is prime, but \(6=3*2\) is not prime.

When you say, x is a product of 2 integers, and 3 is represented as 3x1, 6 should be represented as 3x2x1? hence stmt 2 is sufficient since only primes can be represented as product of 2 integers? Please clarify.

Thanks, Alok322

x is a product of two integers means that x can be represented as the product of two integers.
_________________

I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. the question may be misleading since statement 2 can be misunderstood since its vague

I think this is a poor-quality question. Statement 2 must include ANY or ONLY. It is ambiguous for a DS question. I don't think GMAC will have an ambiguous question

Is x = Prime? 1, If prime 2 , x could be 2,4,6,8.. If prime 3 , x could be 3,6,9,12.. If prime 5 , x could be 5,10,15,... So BCE 2, x = 0x1 =0 ( 0 is not prime) x = 2x-4 = -8 ( -8 is not prime) x= 2x1 = 2 ( 2 is prime) So eliminate B Next, If x = 2,5,7 are prime numbers so I have chosen C

Pls help me.
_________________

I welcome analysis on my posts and kudo +1 if helpful. It helps me to improve my craft.Thank you

Statement (2) by itself is not sufficient. The product of two integers can be prime only if one integer is a prime and the other integer is 1. For example \(3=1*3\) is prime, but \(6=3*2\) is not prime.

When you say, x is a product of 2 integers, and 3 is represented as 3x1, 6 should be represented as 3x2x1? hence stmt 2 is sufficient since only primes can be represented as product of 2 integers? Please clarify.

Thanks, Alok322

x is a product of two integers means that x can be represented as the product of two integers.

Hello Bunuel

Need a clarification here.

I am still confused about the statement 2. Product of TWO integers: 3*1 Product of THREE integers: 1*3*2= 6 (one is a factor of 3 as well)

Statement 2 should be sufficient according to the above analysis because ONLY PRIME NUMBERS HAVE TWO FACTORS (ONE AND ITSELF).

I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. Statement 1 leads to the conclusion that x is not prime. Doesn't this mean it's sufficient?

I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. Statement 1 leads to the conclusion that x is not prime. Doesn't this mean it's sufficient?

x is a multiple of a prime number does not mean that x is not a prime. For example, 5 is a multiple of 5, so x could be a prime.
_________________

I think this is a high-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. With the statement 1, we can derive that x is not a prime number as its a multiple of a prime number. Why not option 1 is the correct answer?

I think this is a high-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. With the statement 1, we can derive that x is not a prime number as its a multiple of a prime number. Why not option 1 is the correct answer?

x is a multiple of a prime number does not mean that x is not a prime. For example, 5 is a multiple of 5, so x could be a prime.
_________________