Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
16 Sep 2014, 01:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
63% (01:36) correct
38%
(01:47)
wrong
based on 48
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The consumer price index in Zeropia in 2009 relative to the year 2000 was 1.75, meaning that for every Zeropian dollar spent on consumer goods in 2000, $1.75 on average had to be spent in 2009. In Zeropian dollars, what was the increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes from 2000 to 2009, if these shoes’ price increased precisely according to the consumer price index?
(1) The price of Brand Z running shoes was $91 in 2009.
(2) The ratio of the dollar increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes to the price of the shoes in 2009 was 3:7.
(1) The price of Brand Z running shoes was $91 in 2009.
(2) The ratio of the dollar increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes to the price of the shoes in 2009 was 3:7.
16 Sep 2014, 01:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
The consumer price index gives us a ratio between prices in 2000 and prices in 2009. We are told that "for every Zeropian dollar spent on consumer goods in 2000, $1.75 on average had to be spent in 2009." In other words, if something cost \(X\) dollars in 2000, it cost \(1.75 \times X\) dollars in 2009 (as long as the price increased exactly according to the index, which is just an average). In dollar terms, the increase in price would then be \(1.75 \times X - X = 0.75 \times X\) dollars.
We are asked for this dollar price increase for Brand Z running shoes. Representing the price of these shoes in 2000 as \(X\), as we already have, we can rephrase the question as "What is \(0.75 \times X\)?" We can further rephrase this question to "What is \(X\)?"
(1) SUFFICIENT. We are told that the price of the shoes in 2009 is $91. We have represented the 2009 price as \(1.75 \times X\) dollars, staying consistent with our variable naming throughout the problem (never change variable designations midstream unless you’re starting over completely). So we can write an equation:
\(1.75 \times X = 91\)
We know we can solve for \(X\), so we can answer the question. (Incidentally, if we had to solve for this \(X\) on a Problem-Solving problem, one fast way would be to convert 1.75 to a fraction. \(1.75 = \frac{7}{4}\), so we can quickly write that \(X = 91 \times \frac{4}{7}\). Since \(\frac{91}{7} = 13\), we get \(X = 13 \times 4 = 52\).)
(2) INSUFFICIENT. We are told that the price increase in dollar terms, divided by the price of the shoes in 2009, is \(\frac{3}{7}\). However, this information is already completely implied by the stem. If the index is 1.75, then any good’s price increase was 75%, or 75 cents for every 2000 dollar. Since the 2009 price is $1.75 for every 2000 dollar, the ratio of the price increase ($0.75) to the 2009 price ($1.75) will always be \(\frac{0.75}{1.75}\), or \(\frac{3}{7}\). This holds true no matter what the original 2000 price is, so we cannot determine \(X\) through this bit of redundant information.
Answer: A
The consumer price index gives us a ratio between prices in 2000 and prices in 2009. We are told that "for every Zeropian dollar spent on consumer goods in 2000, $1.75 on average had to be spent in 2009." In other words, if something cost \(X\) dollars in 2000, it cost \(1.75 \times X\) dollars in 2009 (as long as the price increased exactly according to the index, which is just an average). In dollar terms, the increase in price would then be \(1.75 \times X - X = 0.75 \times X\) dollars.
We are asked for this dollar price increase for Brand Z running shoes. Representing the price of these shoes in 2000 as \(X\), as we already have, we can rephrase the question as "What is \(0.75 \times X\)?" We can further rephrase this question to "What is \(X\)?"
(1) SUFFICIENT. We are told that the price of the shoes in 2009 is $91. We have represented the 2009 price as \(1.75 \times X\) dollars, staying consistent with our variable naming throughout the problem (never change variable designations midstream unless you’re starting over completely). So we can write an equation:
\(1.75 \times X = 91\)
We know we can solve for \(X\), so we can answer the question. (Incidentally, if we had to solve for this \(X\) on a Problem-Solving problem, one fast way would be to convert 1.75 to a fraction. \(1.75 = \frac{7}{4}\), so we can quickly write that \(X = 91 \times \frac{4}{7}\). Since \(\frac{91}{7} = 13\), we get \(X = 13 \times 4 = 52\).)
(2) INSUFFICIENT. We are told that the price increase in dollar terms, divided by the price of the shoes in 2009, is \(\frac{3}{7}\). However, this information is already completely implied by the stem. If the index is 1.75, then any good’s price increase was 75%, or 75 cents for every 2000 dollar. Since the 2009 price is $1.75 for every 2000 dollar, the ratio of the price increase ($0.75) to the 2009 price ($1.75) will always be \(\frac{0.75}{1.75}\), or \(\frac{3}{7}\). This holds true no matter what the original 2000 price is, so we cannot determine \(X\) through this bit of redundant information.
Answer: A
21 Dec 2020, 11:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
(1) The price of Brand Z running shoes was $91 in 2009.
The consumer price index is 1.75, so 1.75x=$91.
1.75 = \(\frac{7}{4}\) , so $91*\(\frac{4}{7}\) = $52.
Option 1 SUFFICIENT
(2) The ratio of the dollar increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes to the price of the shoes in 2009 was 3:7.
The ratio was 3x:7x, and the value vary based on the x. So its not possible to get the exact dollar amount.
Option 2 INSUFFICIENT
Ans A
