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:

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago. The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years. Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.

From S1 we learn that the animal became extinct 6 years after the scientists made their prediction. Of course, we have no info about t, so this is not sufficient. Similarly S2 is not sufficient, since we have no info about when the animal actually became extinct.

Combining the two Statements, we know that if we add three to t, the value we get will be two away from the correct value, which is, from Statement 1, six. We do not, however, know if it will be two above or two below the correct value, so we will get two different possible values for t. That is, the scientists may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 1 year; adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. Or, they may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 5 years; again, adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. The answer is E.

I'm curious where the question is from; it's a bit different from other questions I've seen.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.

From S1 we learn that the animal became extinct 6 years after the scientists made their prediction. Of course, we have no info about t, so this is not sufficient. Similarly S2 is not sufficient, since we have no info about when the animal actually became extinct.

Combining the two Statements, we know that if we add three to t, the value we get will be two away from the correct value, which is, from Statement 1, six. We do not, however, know if it will be two above or two below the correct value, so we will get two different possible values for t. That is, the scientists may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 1 year; adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. Or, they may have predicted the animal would become extinct in 5 years; again, adding three, we are off by two from the correct value of 6. The answer is E.

I'm curious where the question is from; it's a bit different from other questions I've seen.

(1) The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.

From S1 we get it got extincted 6 years after the prediction. then t =6? they are just asking after how many years of prediction it will be extincted. Pls correct me where m wrong
_________________

(1) The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.

From S1 we get it got extincted 6 years after the prediction. then t =6? they are just asking after how many years of prediction it will be extincted. Pls correct me where m wrong

I fall into the same trap and assumed that sientists' prediction is acurate. However, in this case the sientists' prediction for time of extinction is not necessarily equal to the time of actual animal extinction

Cheers! JT........... If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|Do not post questions with OA|Please underline your SC questions while posting|Try posting the explanation along with your answer choice| |For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2012, 07:55

Bunuel, this problem, in my view, is ambiguous in its statement. Is t representing only the scientists' prediction, or the actual time of extinction. And in a math problem , shouldn't we be assuming these to be the same.(and not employ our CR skills)

Bunuel, this problem, in my view, is ambiguous in its statement. Is t representing only the scientists' prediction, or the actual time of extinction. And in a math problem , shouldn't we be assuming these to be the same.(and not employ our CR skills)

Well, common sense says that predictions are not 100% precise. But even if you are confused by the first statement, the second one should help to realize that the predicted extinction date and the actual extinction date are not the same.
_________________

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 01:23

alexBLR wrote:

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.

Just my two cents: I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction. Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together: Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5. Sufficient.

Answer C
_________________

PhD in Applied Mathematics Love GMAT Quant questions and running.

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.

Just my two cents: I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction. Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together: Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5. Sufficient.

Answer C

Both t=1 and t=5 satisfy the statements. So, the answer is E.
_________________

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 01:50

Bunuel wrote:

EvaJager wrote:

alexBLR wrote:

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.

Just my two cents: I assume that the scientists's prediction is either correct or not, according to the supplied information.

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. Nothing stated about the accuracy of the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) In contrast to (1), here we have explicitly stated that t + 3 would be incorrect by 2 years. It means that animal z became extinct in t + 1 years and \(t + 1 \leq10\) or \(t\leq9\) because we have already witnessed the extinction. Not sufficient.

(1) and (2) together: Scientists predicted t years, but in fact the extinction occurred after t+1 years. We know for sure that this happened 4 years ago or 6 years after the scientists's prediction. This means t + 1= 6 or t = 5. Sufficient.

Answer C

Both t=1 and t=5 satisfy the statements. So, the answer is E.

Oops! I missed the -2 possibility...
_________________

PhD in Applied Mathematics Love GMAT Quant questions and running.

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Apr 2015, 02:40

Bunuel wrote:

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago. The only thing we can get from this statement is when animal z actually extincted: 4 years ago or 6 years after the prediction. Not sufficient.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years. Also not sufficient: t+3=actual extinction +/- 2.

(1)+(2) Animals extincted 6 years after the prediction: t+3=6-2 --> t=1 OR t+3=6+2 --> t=5. Two answers, not sufficient.

Answer: E.

Hi Bunuel, Initially I choose A.Then after analysis,I found that in question scientist predicted that the animal z "would" become extinct in t years.Would is assumption or uncertainty whereas in answer it is given that animal became extinct 4 years ago(certainty). Is this the right logic to rule out A?

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jan 2017, 20:35

The question does not ask for the actual number of years ago that animal z became extinct. Instead it asks for t, the number of years scientists predicted it would take for animal z to become extinct.

(1) INSUFFICIENT: This tells us that animal z became extinct 4 years ago but it does not provide information about t.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: This provides a relationship between the predicted time of extinction time and the actual time of extinction but does not provide any actual values for either.

(1) AND (2) INSUFFICIENT: The easiest way to approach this problem is to imagine a time line from 0 to 10. The scientists made their prediction 10 years ago, or at 0 years.

From statement (1) we know that animal z became extinct 4 years ago, or at 6 years.

From statement (2) we know that if the scientists had extended their prediction by 3 years they would have been incorrect by 2 years. The key to this question is to realize that "incorrect by 2 years" could mean 2 years in either direction: 6 + 2 = 8 years or 6 – 2 = 4 years.

From here, we can write two simple equations:

t + 3 = 8 OR t + 3 = 4 t = 5 t = 1

This gives us two different values for t, which means that (1) and (2) together are not sufficient to come up with one definitive value for t. The correct answer is E.
_________________

Re: Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 May 2017, 03:42

I have done the same silly mistake twice in this question . "Actually extinct" v/s "extinct" . Could anyone help me to improve on such things - it would be a great help.
_________________

I have done the same silly mistake twice in this question . "Actually extinct" v/s "extinct" . Could anyone help me to improve on such things - it would be a great help.

Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by this? If you could write out your solution (including where you went wrong), I'd be able to help.
_________________

Chelsey Cooley | Manhattan Prep Instructor | Seattle and Online