Last visit was: 12 Jul 2025, 03:16 It is currently 12 Jul 2025, 03:16
Close
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
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
asfandabid
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Last visit: 09 Apr 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
66
 [20]
Given Kudos: 104
Posts: 40
Kudos: 66
 [20]
Kudos
Add Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
74,270
 [10]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,270
 [10]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 11,295
Own Kudos:
41,695
 [1]
Given Kudos: 333
Status:Math and DI Expert
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 11,295
Kudos: 41,695
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
hellosanthosh2k2
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Last visit: 07 Dec 2020
Posts: 362
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,227
Location: India
Schools: XLRI"20
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.5
Schools: XLRI"20
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 362
Kudos: 565
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chetan2u
asfandabid
The ratio of SUV's to passenger cars sold at a particular automobile dealership have been declining from 2003 to 2007, while total sales have remained constant. The total number of vehicles sold in 2007 was divisible 10. In 2007, were more cars sold than SUV's?

1. If in 2007 as many SUV's had been sold as cars were sold in 2003, there would have been a 36% increase in total vehicle sales.

2. In 2003, twice as many SUV's were sold as cars.

Hi..
Since total sales remain constant, if the ratio S to P decrease, S decreases and P increases with same amount.


Statement I.
Let the sale in 2007 be \(S_7.....&....P_7\) similarly for 2003..
Now the statement means \(P_3-S_7=0.36(S_7+P_7)......P_3+0.36*P_7=1.36*S_7...\)

Now \(P_3<P_7\) so LHS will be \((<P_7)+0.36*P_7= (<1.36)P_7.......\)
So a LESSER Number multiplied by P_7 = a higher number multiplied by S_7
Clearly P_7>S_7
Sufficient

Statement II..
We don't know about 2007
Insufficient

A

Hi Chetan,

Thanks for explanation, there is one small error in rearranging

\(P_3-S_7=0.36(S_7+P_7)......P_3+0.36*P_7=1.36*S_7...\)
\(P_3-S_7=0.36(S_7+P_7)......P_3-0.36*P_7=1.36*S_7...\)


Thanks
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatRichC
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
Last visit: 31 Dec 2023
Posts: 21,788
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 450
Status:GMAT Assassin/Co-Founder
Affiliations: EMPOWERgmat
Location: United States (CA)
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V49
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V49
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Posts: 21,788
Kudos: 12,488
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi All,

We're told that the RATIO of SUV's to passenger cars sold at a particular automobile dealership have been DECLINING from 2003 to 2007, while total sales have remained CONSTANT and the total number of vehicles sold in 2007 was divisible 10. We're asked if, In 2007, more cars were sold than SUVs. This is a YES/NO question and can be solved by TESTing VALUES (although it will take a lot of little 'steps' to properly deal with this prompt).

To start, it's worth noting that we're given a LOT of information in the prompt, so we have to properly 'set up' what we have before we consider the additional information in the two Facts. For the sake of ease, I'm going to create some variables:

T = the number of SUVs sold
C = the number of cars sold

We're told:

1) The RATIO of T/C is DECLINING. For a ratio to decline, the numerator decreases and/or the denominator increases.
2) The total number of cars sold is a CONSTANT. When combined with the information on the ratio of vehicles sold, this means that while the TOTAL vehicles sold stays the SAME each year, T will DECREASE and C will INCREASE from year to year.
3) T+C is a multiple of 10.

At this point, we do NOT know if T or C is larger in 2003 or in 2007. We do know that for each "1 less" SUV sold, we will have "1 more" car sold.

1) If in 2007 as many SUV's had been sold as cars were sold in 2003, there would have been a 36% increase in total vehicle sales.

Fact 1 gives us a hypothetical about the number of SUVs sold in 2007 - and many Test Takers would probably assume that it is insufficient information. However, we have so many 'restrictions' given to us in the beginning, we have to do a bit of work to PROVE whether Fact 1 is sufficient or insufficient.

In 2003, there are only 3 possibilities, T = C or T > C or T < C. Let's start with the easiest option....

IF... T = C
2003: 50 SUVs and 50 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 50/50 = 1/1
Hypo. 2007: 50 SUVs and X cars --> 100 + 36%(100) = 136
50 + X = 136
X = 86
Actual 2007: Y SUVs and 86 cars --> 100 total vehicles
Y = 14
Actual 2007: 14 SUVs and 86 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 14/86
This first example fits everything that we were told (re: constant total, decreasing ratio) and the answer to the question is YES.

IF... T > C
In this example, I'm going to stick with a total of 100 vehicles; with this total, it's worth noting that neither T nor C can exceed 100, so the numbers that I'm going to TEST have to account for that AND the hypothetical total of 136 vehicles sold in 2007.

2003: 63 SUVs and 37 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 63/37
Hypo. 2007: 37 SUVs and X cars --> 100 + 36%(100) = 136
37 + X = 136
X = 99
Actual 2007: Y SUVs and 99 cars --> 100 total vehicles
Y = 1
Actual 2007: 1 SUVs and 99 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 1/99
This second example fits everything that we were told (re: constant total, decreasing ratio) and the answer to the question is YES.

IF... T < C
2003: 20 SUVs and 80 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 20/80 = 1/4
Hypo. 2007: 80 SUVs and X cars --> 100 + 36%(100) = 136
80 + X = 136
X = 56
Actual 2007: Y SUVs and 56 cars --> 100 total vehicles
Y = 44
Actual 2007: 44 SUVs and 56 cars --> 100 total vehicles, ratio of T/C = 44/56
In this third example, the starting ratio (1/4) is LESS than the ending ratio (44/56), so the ratio is NOT decreasing. This does NOT fit what we were told, so this example is NOT permissible.

We have two examples that fit everything that we are told AND lead to the SAME answer (a "YES" answer both times). I can find no proof of an inconsistency, meaning that there does not appear to be a "no" answer under these conditions.
Fact 1 is SUFFICIENT.

2. In 2003, twice as many SUV's were sold as cars.

Fact 2 tells us NOTHING about the number of vehicles sold in 2007.
Fact 2 is INSUFFICIENT

Final Answer:
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
User avatar
bumpbot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 37,376
Own Kudos:
Posts: 37,376
Kudos: 1,010
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderator:
Math Expert
102637 posts