Bunuel
While there are often much slicker ways to handle problems like this (and I look forward to the discussion below), an approach I often fall back on in situations involving calculations with improbably large numbers is to start the calculation with smaller versions of the numbers in question to see if a pattern emerges. In this case, the approach would go..
8 x (8) = 64
8 x (88) = 704
8 x (888) = 7104
8 x (8888) = 71104
8 x (88888) = 711104...
To be clear, the above math is partly for illustration. In doing the problem, I probably wouldn't calculate all of these numbers; rather, I would start with a pairing like 8 x (88888) and see the pattern that emerges while doing the math. In this case, doing the math lands you with a number that starts following the pattern 711...1104, in which the ellipsis represents a number of 1s that grows depending how many digits the second factor in the original multiplication has. The question now becomes how
many 1s we'll need for the digits to add up to 1000 and what that means for the variable in question,
k. The number that results from this calculation will always have a 7 as its lead digit, a 0 as its tens digit, and a 4 as its units digit. Because these digits themselves add up to 11, to get to a digit-sum of 1000, the product will need 989 1s.
It can be tempting to go to the answers looking for 989 at that point, but always return to the question first. What does
k have to be in order for us to get 989 1s? Let's return to the calculation above: when there were
four 8s in the second factor, there were
two 1s in the final product. When there were
five 8s, we got
three 1s. The number of 1s in the final product is always
two fewer than the number of 8s in the second factor. Following this pattern, in order to get 989 1s in the final product, we'll need 991 8s in the second factor. Therefore, the answer is
D.