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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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 2512:30 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.
18 Feb 2026, 20:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:51) correct
55%
(01:33)
wrong
based on 85
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Did Sanna save at least 20 percent higher last month than what she did the previous month?
(1) Sanna’s income last month was 20 percent greater than her income in the previous month.
(2) Sanna’s expenses last month were 10 percent greater than her expenses in the previous month.
(1) Sanna’s income last month was 20 percent greater than her income in the previous month.
(2) Sanna’s expenses last month were 10 percent greater than her expenses in the previous month.
19 Feb 2026, 00:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let the savings be S
then question is asking is the savings at least greater than 1.2S or algebraically is new savings (>=1.2S)
Statement 1: Insufficient as no mention if savings
Statement 2: Insufficient as no mention of savings(What if the 2nd month's income was same or very less compared to previous or way too much more than previous month and so the savings can be here and there in comparison wise)
Statement 1 + statement 2:
let "I" be the income for the previous month and "E" be the expense for the previous month.
Therefore, savings for the previous month=I-E
savings for the last month= (>1.2I - >1.1E), this boils down to ((I+>0.2I)-(E+>0.1E))=(S+(>0.2I->0.1E))
(S+(>0.2I->0.1E)) again depends on the exact value of I and E to conclude that it is at least 1.2S
There again (1)+(2) is insufficient.
Answer is Option (E)
then question is asking is the savings at least greater than 1.2S or algebraically is new savings (>=1.2S)
Statement 1: Insufficient as no mention if savings
Statement 2: Insufficient as no mention of savings(What if the 2nd month's income was same or very less compared to previous or way too much more than previous month and so the savings can be here and there in comparison wise)
Statement 1 + statement 2:
let "I" be the income for the previous month and "E" be the expense for the previous month.
Therefore, savings for the previous month=I-E
savings for the last month= (>1.2I - >1.1E), this boils down to ((I+>0.2I)-(E+>0.1E))=(S+(>0.2I->0.1E))
(S+(>0.2I->0.1E)) again depends on the exact value of I and E to conclude that it is at least 1.2S
There again (1)+(2) is insufficient.
Answer is Option (E)
19 Feb 2026, 05:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Key Concept: Data Sufficiency — Algebraic Sufficiency vs. Assumed Insufficiency
Quick note on the existing answer: I get why (E) feels right here — it looks like we don't have enough info about actual savings. But let's work through the algebra carefully, because this question has a neat hidden sufficiency.
Set up variables:
Let I = previous month's income, E = previous month's expenses
Old savings = I − E
The question asks: Is New Savings ≥ 1.2 × Old Savings?
Statement (1) alone: Income increased 20%. No info on expenses → savings unknown. Insufficient. ✗
Statement (2) alone: Expenses increased 10%. No info on income → savings unknown. Insufficient. ✗
Statements (1) + (2) together:
New income = 1.2I
New expenses = 1.1E
New savings = 1.2I − 1.1E
We need to check: Is 1.2I − 1.1E ≥ 1.2(I − E)?
Step 1 — Expand the right side:
1.2I − 1.2E
Step 2 — Compare both sides:
Is 1.2I − 1.1E ≥ 1.2I − 1.2E?
Step 3 — Subtract 1.2I from both sides:
Is −1.1E ≥ −1.2E?
→ Is 0.1E ≥ 0?
Since expenses E must be ≥ 0, this is always true. The answer is definitively YES, regardless of the actual values of I and E.
Answer: C — both statements together are sufficient.
The trap: The instinct is to say "we don't know actual income or expense values, so (E)." But DS doesn't require you to calculate a specific number — it only needs the yes/no question to be determined. Here the algebra proves the answer is always "yes," which makes (1)+(2) sufficient.
Takeaway: In DS yes/no questions involving percentages, always try the algebra first — sometimes the variables cancel completely and give you a result that's always true (or always false), making the statements sufficient even without specific values.
Quick note on the existing answer: I get why (E) feels right here — it looks like we don't have enough info about actual savings. But let's work through the algebra carefully, because this question has a neat hidden sufficiency.
Set up variables:
Let I = previous month's income, E = previous month's expenses
Old savings = I − E
The question asks: Is New Savings ≥ 1.2 × Old Savings?
Statement (1) alone: Income increased 20%. No info on expenses → savings unknown. Insufficient. ✗
Statement (2) alone: Expenses increased 10%. No info on income → savings unknown. Insufficient. ✗
Statements (1) + (2) together:
New income = 1.2I
New expenses = 1.1E
New savings = 1.2I − 1.1E
We need to check: Is 1.2I − 1.1E ≥ 1.2(I − E)?
Step 1 — Expand the right side:
1.2I − 1.2E
Step 2 — Compare both sides:
Is 1.2I − 1.1E ≥ 1.2I − 1.2E?
Step 3 — Subtract 1.2I from both sides:
Is −1.1E ≥ −1.2E?
→ Is 0.1E ≥ 0?
Since expenses E must be ≥ 0, this is always true. The answer is definitively YES, regardless of the actual values of I and E.
Answer: C — both statements together are sufficient.
The trap: The instinct is to say "we don't know actual income or expense values, so (E)." But DS doesn't require you to calculate a specific number — it only needs the yes/no question to be determined. Here the algebra proves the answer is always "yes," which makes (1)+(2) sufficient.
Takeaway: In DS yes/no questions involving percentages, always try the algebra first — sometimes the variables cancel completely and give you a result that's always true (or always false), making the statements sufficient even without specific values.
