Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

joyseychow,

Could you kindly post the source of the question?

Gmat prep.

Great interpretation! I think your translation of statement A is correct. But, if a prime factor enters "n" an odd number of times, it may no longer be the square of an interger. Take 8 for example:

8=2*2*2

2 and 2^2=4 are factors, but sqrt(8) is not an interger. Thus A is insufficient.

Answer: B

IMO B

There have been examples of proofs that Statement 1 is insufficient (which I think it is). For example someone gave the example of n = 18. So the prime factors of 18 are 2 and 3 right. But 2 squared is NOT a divisor of 18! Does this not disqualify 18 from consideration as a possible n? The same goes for 45 whose prime factors are 3 and 5. 5 squared is not a divisor of 45. However 27 may work because 3 is the only prime factor and 3 squared is a divisor of 27. We know 27 is not a perfect square. Also---maybe the word "distinct" may have made things a bit clearer?

is it B?

1 is insufficient because if we consider n as 27, prime factor is 3 and also 27 is divisible by 3^2 but still 27 is not a perfect square.

user123321

_________________
Just started my preparation
Want to do it right the first time.

D.

question says that for every prime number p if p is divisor of n then p2 will also be divisor.

n=45, p=3 => n is divisible by p2 but n is not a square of any number.
but we should take p=5 also. In this case p2 is not divisor of n.
So it can be concluded that n is not square of any number.
So first stmt is sufficient.

Second one is known to every one.

Thanks

I got the answer as B

What is the OA?

Can any expert throw light on the Statement 1?

_________________
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" ---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---

OA must be B. There is no other correct answer. Let me explain.

First, there seems to be a debate about "interpretation" of the first statement. There is only one way of doing so.
Hold on, I am going to give my first "verbal" explanation in "quantitative". As Norm Macdonald would say, "Ridiculous". Let`s get on with it.
We are told : "For every prime number p, if p is a divisor of n, then so is p^2
For every prime number p. This only means one thing; it means that p is a prime number.

To interpret it the |other| way, unambiguously, the statement will need to be:
For every prime factor (p) of n, repetitions included, if p is divisor of n, so is p^2. Clearly, this is NOT what the statement asks. So we interpret it as the authors intended. That if there is a prime factor p of n, then there is also p^2 as a factor.

For the question, we are asked, if n is square of a positive integer.
1) Let p = 2 be a factor, then 2^2=4 is a factor, but what if the number was 8. Then it satisfies the 2, 2^2 as factors condition. But 8 is not a square. Hence A is insufficient.

2) We are given that sqrt(n) = m, where (m,n are positive integers);
Squaring both sides, we get n=m^2. Clearly this is what the question asked. Sufficient. Hence B

Let me know if this helps

Seems u copied answer from your neighbour ..lolz