Company Z only sells chairs and tables. what percent of its

No. \(\frac{n_t*p_t}{n_t*p_t+n_c*p_c}=\frac{x}{x+y}\). This expression is not necessarily equal to 1.

Hey guys,

i know this topic is frm 5 years ago, but i got stuck on MGMAT explanation.

Ok, I found how Rc and Rt are related, but I cant figure how it is conclusive to find how Rc is related for total revenue.

Since

Revenue = Rt + Rc

Rt = Qt x Pt

Rc = Qc x PC

And we found that Rt = 0.88 Rc

If I replace Rt in revenue equation my result will be

Revenue = 0.88 Rc + Rc

What could I conclude with this final equation??

Bunuel niks18 gmatbusters

Average price = (Price per table or chair) / total no of table or chairs.
I could not understand how could you derive Eq 1 of St 1 without having an idea about individual quantity?

hi adkikani

here \(p_t\) & \(p_c\) are the average price of table and chair respectively or simply put they are the price of each table and chair. now it is assumed that \(n_t\) & \(n_c\) represent total number of tables and chairs.

So revenue = price per item * total number of items

Hence revenue from table \(= p_t*n_t\)

Also statement 1 gives you the relationship between average prices, so to derive the equation you need not require quantity.

the relationship between the prices will be \(p_t=1.1*p_c\)

Hi All,

We're told that Company Z only sells chairs and tables. We're asked for the percent of its revenue in 2008 that the company derived from its sales of tables. While this DS question is layered, it offers an interesting shortcut in that it's not asking for the specific price or number of tables and chairs; it's asking for "what percent of its revenue" was from the sale of tables, so you can answer it either with real values or with ratios. Here's a way to think in terms of what's being asked for:

(Total Revenue from tables)/(Total Revenue from tables and chairs) = ?

1) In 2008, the average price of tables sold by company Z was 10% higher than the average price of chairs sold by Company Z.

Fact 1 compares the average price of tables to the average price of chairs, but it DOESN'T tell us about total revenue. Mathematically, we'd have:

(Table Price) = 1.1(Chair Price)

We still don't know how many tables and chairs were sold though.
Fact 1 is INSUFFICIENT.

2) In 2008, Company Z sold 20% fewer tables than chairs.

Based on the information in Fact 2, we'd have:

(Number of Tables) = .8(Number of Chairs)

We still don't know the price of the tables or chairs.
Fact 2 is INSUFFICIENT.

Combined, we know:

(Table Price) = 1.1(Chair Price)
(Number of Tables) = .8(Number of Chairs)

Table Revenue = (Number of Tables)(Table price)
Total Revenue = (Number of Tables)(Table price) + (Number of chairs)(Chair price)

Now, we can substitute in values of the "chair" info:

Total Revenue = (Number of Tables)(Table price) + (Number of Tables/.8)(Table price/1.1)

Solving for Table Revenue/Total Revenue, all the variables would cancel out and you'd have:

.88/1.88

Don't bother calculating this though. It's enough to give you the only possible answer.

Final Answer:

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Can we also do it by assuming original price and no. Of tables and chairs to be 100 each and then add percent accordingly