|
|
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.
10 Feb 2020, 23:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
82% (01:22) correct
18%
(01:28)
wrong
based on 143
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The ratio of the number of men to the number of women, at a function, is 3: 4. Was the number of children greater than the number of women?
1. The ratio of the number of children to the sum of number of men and women is 3:7
2. The number of children at the tour was more than 40.
1. The ratio of the number of children to the sum of number of men and women is 3:7
2. The number of children at the tour was more than 40.
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
11 Feb 2020, 23:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Raxit85
Solution:
- • The ratio of men to women = \(3: 4\)
• Let \(3x\) and \(4x\) be the number of men and women respectively.
- o Total number of men and women = \(7x\)…(i)
Statement 1:
The ratio of children to the sum of the number of men and women = \(3: 7\)- • Let the \(3y\) and \(7y\) be the number of children and sum of the number of men and women respectively.
- • \(7x = 7y\)
• \(x = y\)
- • Ratio of number children to women = \(3x: 4x = 3: 4\)
• It means the number of children is less than the number of women.
Statement 2:
The number of children \(> 40\)- • Here, we don’t know the number of women.
10 Jul 2022, 05:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
My 2 cents on this:
I think the key is to understand that 3x (children) will always be lesser than 4x (women)
Only Statement 1 establishes this.
Statement 2 talks of c>40, which doesn't provide any relation between children and women.
I think the key is to understand that 3x (children) will always be lesser than 4x (women)
Only Statement 1 establishes this.
Statement 2 talks of c>40, which doesn't provide any relation between children and women.
