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.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
25 Jan 2026, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
60% (00:50) correct
40%
(00:35)
wrong
based on 119
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
How many people did Casax Inc. employ in 2008?
(1) In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
(2) In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
(1) In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
(2) In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
26 Jan 2026, 00:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
How many people did Casax Inc. employ in 2008?
(1) In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
(2) In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
Now, let's look at each statement individually and then at both of them together (if required):
Statement 1: In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
This statement only tells us about the workforce number in the year 2007; no information about the year 2008 is given. Hence, this statement is insufficient alone.
Now, let's take a look at Statement 2 closely:
Statement 2: In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
While this statement provides information about the workforce in 2008, notice - it only tells us about the workforce increase and not the workforce number as such. However, if you look at it closely, the question mentions that the workforce increased by 2% or 2,000 people over 2007.
So, if we assume the workforce number in 2007 as X, 2% increase would mean 0.02X = 2,000. Thus, X = 100,000
Thus, we can clearly conclude that Casax Inc. employed a total of X+2000 = 100,000+2000 = 102,000 in the year 2008, using Statement 2 alone.
Friendly advice: Be careful in such questions - when both a percentage change and the absolute change are given, they may uniquely determine the base value, making the statement sufficient.
As the answer can be uniquely determined using Statement 2 alone, the correct answer is Option B - Statement 2 alone is sufficient.
Hope this helps!
(1) In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
(2) In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
Now, let's look at each statement individually and then at both of them together (if required):
Statement 1: In 2007, Casax Inc.’s workforce numbered 100,000 people.
This statement only tells us about the workforce number in the year 2007; no information about the year 2008 is given. Hence, this statement is insufficient alone.
Now, let's take a look at Statement 2 closely:
Statement 2: In 2008, Casax Inc.’s workforce increased by 2 percent, or 2,000 people, over 2007.
While this statement provides information about the workforce in 2008, notice - it only tells us about the workforce increase and not the workforce number as such. However, if you look at it closely, the question mentions that the workforce increased by 2% or 2,000 people over 2007.
So, if we assume the workforce number in 2007 as X, 2% increase would mean 0.02X = 2,000. Thus, X = 100,000
Thus, we can clearly conclude that Casax Inc. employed a total of X+2000 = 100,000+2000 = 102,000 in the year 2008, using Statement 2 alone.
Friendly advice: Be careful in such questions - when both a percentage change and the absolute change are given, they may uniquely determine the base value, making the statement sufficient.
As the answer can be uniquely determined using Statement 2 alone, the correct answer is Option B - Statement 2 alone is sufficient.
Hope this helps!
26 Jan 2026, 06:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
i am not sure that interpretation of statement 2 is correct from your side. it doesnt say that 2% increase is equal to 2000.
shivani1351
