-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Pesky Prime Theory
Data Sufficiency problems often have elegant shortcuts if we really understand the theory behind whatever the problem tests and, sometimes, DS sets up some very tricky traps if we really dont understand the theory. Lets try one out.
This problem is from GMATPrep. Set your timer for 2 minutes. and GO!
* If r and s are positive integers, is r/s an integer?(1) Every factor of s is also a factor of r.
(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r.
How did it go? The question stem seems pretty straightforward. They tell us that r and s are positive integers and they ask a (seemingly!) simple question: is r/s an integer?
What does that question really mean? What would need to be true in order for r/s to be an integer? What would need to be true for it NOT to be an integer?
When dividing, were going to get an integer only if the denominator, in this case s, divides evenly into the numerator, in this case r. The denominator has to go away completely. For example, 6/3 is an integer, because the 3 "goes away" or divides out completely, but 7/3 is not. Whats this really asking, then? Its a factor question in disguise! If s is a factor of r, then the resulting number will be an integer. If, on the other hand, s is not a factor of r, then the resulting number will not be an integer.
Now, you might pick up that idea when you look at the statements, since both mention some form of factors. But try to get in the habit of noticing right away that, when they ask whether dividing one thing into another will produce an integer, theyre really asking whether one thing is a factor of another thing.
Okay, so theyre really asking whether s is a factor of r. You could also word it as: is r a multiple of s? Lets examine statement 1:
(1) Every factor of s is also a factor of r.
Well, this seems to be exactly what we were talking about a minute ago, doesnt it? So this one should be sufficient. And, hey, statement 2 seems to be saying the same thing, right? So I guess I can just pick D and move on.
Slow down a little. Maybe thats how the problem will play out, but lets examine this a little more carefully to make sure we dont make a mistake.
First, an important note. The shared numbers are what Ill call unidirectional. That is, r contains all of ss factors, but s does NOT necessarily contain all of rs factors. Theyre not saying that r and s each have the same factors as the other. (The same is true for statement 2, except substitute prime factors for factors in the preceding sentences.)
So, we have an s. According to statement 1, every single one of ss factors also shows up as a factor of r. If s is 12, for example, then ss factors are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12, and r would contain all of those same factors. If s is 15, then ss factors are 1, 3, 5, and 15, and r would contain all of those same factors. Notice any useful patterns here?
Heres where theory comes in. Recall the idea that, in order to get an integer when dividing, the denominator has to go away or cancel out completely. If s is 12, then one of its factors is 12 because, by definition, any number has itself as a factor. 15 is a factor of 15, 4 is a factor of 4, 23 is a factor of 23. Statement 1 tells us that r contains all of ss factors. Because one of ss factors is always itself, that means r actually contains s s is a factor of r and r is a multiple of s, and so we can always divide out s from the top and the bottom of the fraction.
So, if youve trained yourself to know that is r/s an integer is really just asking whether s is a factor of r, and if you know that factor theory tells us that s would have to divide out completely, then you know the key to the question is this: does r completely contain all of the factors of s, or does r contain s itself? And, if you know that, then you can evaluate statement 1 very quickly: whatever the value of s, that value is itself a factor of r, so s will divide out completely. In other words, yes, r/s is an integer. Youve just used theory to solve statement 1!
Cross off answers B, C, and E and move on to statement 2:
(2) Every prime factor of s is also a prime factor of r.
All right, now we said that this is just the same as statement 1, right? Well, lets see. If s is 6, then the prime factors are 2 and 3. The r variable would also need to contain that 2 and 3, and so the entire 6 would divide out completely for r/s, and wed be left with an integer.
What if s is 8? Now, s has only 2 as a prime factor. And r contains oh, wait, heres an interesting question. Does r contain just one 2? Or does r contain three 2s? Read the statement again. What do you think?
The statement talks about every prime factor of s. If s = 8, what is every prime factor? The number 8 has just one prime factor: 2. That prime factor is used, or repeated, three times, but it is still just the same factor 2. So the only requirement here is that r contain a 2. Now, r could be 16, in which case r/s = 16/8 = still an integer. But what if r is, say, 10? Does r contain whatever prime factor or factors are contained in s?
It does. We found that s contains the prime factor 2, so r must also have the prime factor 2, and it does. But note that s(8) actually contains that prime factor three times, while r(10) contains the prime factor 2 only once. The result? r/s = 10/8 = NOT an integer. This statement is NOT sufficient and the correct answer is A.
See what they did to us here? Its not an accident that the two statements came in this particular order. We test statement 1 first because, well, they gave it to us first. And, once we do that, were predisposed to think, Oh, well, if they have the same factors, then yeah, Im going to get an integer, even if were talking about prime factors instead. Factors are factors. But saying that one number contains all of another numbers regular factors is very different than saying that one number contains allof another numbers prime factors. In the latter case, youd have to specify that the repeats are all included that, if we have three 2s in s, then we also have three 2s in r. Statement 2, though, doesnt do that.
What are your takeaways from this problem? Figure them out before you keep reading.
Key Takeaways for Factor Theory Problems
(1) Asking whether a certain division calculation will result in an integer is a disguise. Theyre really asking whether one thing is a factor of another.
(2) If one variable (lets call it x) contains all of the same factors as another variable (call this one y), then by definition, x is a multiple of y. This always works because y itself is always a factor of y, so if x contains y as a factor, then x is a multiple of y. Heres that idea again using real numbers as an example. If 32 contains all of the same factors as 8 including 8 itself, then by definition, 32 is a multiple of 8, because 32 contains 8 itself as a factor.
(3) If one variable (lets call it a) contains the same basic prime factors as another variable (call this one b), then we dont know whether a is a multiple of b. Its possible, such as when a = 12 and b = 6; b has 2 and 3 as prime factors, and a shares that characteristic. In this case, 12 is a multiple of 6. On the other hand, if a = 30 and b = 12, then b has 2 and 3 as prime factors, and a shares that characteristic, but now, 30 is not a multiple of 12. This is because b actually contains two 2s, but 30 contains only one 2.
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.
Recent Articles
Archive
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009