Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 26 Sep 2026, 22:14 |
It is currently 26 Sep 2026, 22:14 |
|
|
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.
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
17 Oct 2017, 09:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:46) correct
56%
(02:45)
wrong
based on 179
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
Pure algebraic questions like this one are no longer part of the GMAT Data Sufficiency syllabus.
For relevant Data Sufficiency questions, please check the Data Sufficiency forum:
Data Sufficiency Forum
Data Sufficiency Forum
17 Oct 2017, 09:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
asfandabid
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
02 Nov 2017, 12:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
chetan2u
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
20 Sep 2018, 19:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
