It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 13:15

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Wharton R1 | Stanford R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Haas R1 | UCLA R1

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# M28-53

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 00:44
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

39% (01:33) correct 61% (01:13) wrong based on 51 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Set S consists of more than two integers. Are all the integers in set S negative?

(1) The product of any three integers in the set is negative.

(2) The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 00:44
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Official Solution:

(1) The product of any three integers in the set is negative. If the set consists of only 3 terms, then the set could be either $$\{negative, \ negative, \ negative\}$$ or $$\{negative, \ positive, \ positive\}$$. If the set consists of more than 3 terms, then the set can only have negative numbers. Not sufficient.

(2) The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign. Thus the set consists of only negative or only positive integers. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Since the second statement rules out $$\{negative, \ positive, \ positive\}$$ case which we had from (1), then we have that the set must have only negative integers. Sufficient.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2015, 08:55
"2. The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign. Thus the set consists of only negative or only positive integers. Not sufficient."

why does the set consist of only negative or only positive integers? It could be that only the smallest and the largest have the same sign and not the rest.
It doesnt say the other numbers are also primes.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

### Show Tags

07 May 2015, 09:06
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
shly wrote:
"2. The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign. Thus the set consists of only negative or only positive integers. Not sufficient."

why does the set consist of only negative or only positive integers? It could be that only the smallest and the largest have the same sign and not the rest.
It doesnt say the other numbers are also primes.

(2) says: The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number.

Since only positive numbers can be primes, then the smallest and largest integers in the set must be of the same sign.

So either: smallest * greatest = negative * negative and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are negative then ALL integers in the list are negative OR smallest * greatest = positive * positive and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are positive then ALL integers in the list are positive.

Hope it's clear.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2015
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 21

GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V35
GPA: 3.69

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2016, 10:20
It says the product of any three integers in set is Negative. So, even if there are two positive numbers this is not possible. Because what if we choose of the positives and rest two negatives. And the statement says that product is always negative. So I think A is sufficient because all should be negatives

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 21

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [1], given: 12705

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2016, 11:47
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Navinder wrote:
It says the product of any three integers in set is Negative. So, even if there are two positive numbers this is not possible. Because what if we choose of the positives and rest two negatives. And the statement says that product is always negative. So I think A is sufficient because all should be negatives

(1) The product of any three integers in the set is negative.

If the set consists of only 3 terms, then the set could be either $$\{negative, \ negative, \ negative\}$$ or $$\{negative, \ positive, \ positive\}$$. If the set consists of more than 3 terms, then the set can only have negative numbers. Not sufficient.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [1], given: 12705

Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2014
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2016, 09:40
I don't agree with the explanation. If the set consists of only 3 integers, then A+B could give two possibilities:

(negative,negative,negative)
or
(positive, negative,positive)

Both the cases satisfy the two conditions. So the answer should be E

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2016, 09:42
sanjay452 wrote:
I don't agree with the explanation. If the set consists of only 3 integers, then A+B could give two possibilities:

(negative,negative,negative)
or
(positive, negative,positive)

Both the cases satisfy the two conditions. So the answer should be E

Hope it helps.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 Aug 2016
Posts: 261

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 46

GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V38
GMAT 2: 690 Q46 V40
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Consumer Products)

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2017, 18:34
Bunuel wrote:

So either: smallest * greatest = negative * negative and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are negative then ALL integers in the list are negative OR smallest * greatest = positive * positive and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are positive then ALL integers in the list are positive.

Hope it's clear.

Bunuel , if both are negative then middle number is negative as well (so all are negative)
If both are positive then middle number is positive and all are positive.

Doesn't that mean it satisfies both conditions and hence its not sufficient. Or am i completely wrong about DS criteria ?
_________________

My MBA Journey - https://smalldoubledouble.com

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 46

Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2017
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2017, 21:29
So either: smallest * greatest = negative * negative and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are negative then ALL integers in the list are negative OR smallest * greatest = positive * positive and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are positive then ALL integers in the list are positive.

Hope it's clear.

Hi Bunuel,
Is there any compulsion that a set should be arranged in either ascending order or descending order(even if not mentioned in Q specifically).
Like 1st and last terms negative means in between all terms should be less the highest and more than the lowest.
If yes I agree with your above explanation. If not, why cant we consider the case {+ve -ve +ve}.
Can you pls clarify my doubt.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42607

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2017, 01:05
venkys1 wrote:
So either: smallest * greatest = negative * negative and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are negative then ALL integers in the list are negative OR smallest * greatest = positive * positive and in this case as both the smallest and the greatest are positive then ALL integers in the list are positive.

Hope it's clear.

Hi Bunuel,
Is there any compulsion that a set should be arranged in either ascending order or descending order(even if not mentioned in Q specifically).
Like 1st and last terms negative means in between all terms should be less the highest and more than the lowest.
If yes I agree with your above explanation. If not, why cant we consider the case {+ve -ve +ve}.
Can you pls clarify my doubt.

My friend you did not read carefully enough.

First of all, a set is a collection of elements without any order, while for example a sequence is ordered.

Next, (2) says: The product of the smallest and largest integers in the set is a prime number. Does it say first and last? NO.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 135655 [0], given: 12705

Re: M28-53   [#permalink] 26 Nov 2017, 01:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# M28-53

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.