zagcollins wrote:Stations X and Y are connected by two separate, straight, parallel rail lines that are 250 miles long. Train P and train Q simultaneously left Station X and Station Y, respectively, and each train traveled to the other’s point of departure. The two trains passed each other after traveling for 2 hours. When the two trains passed, which train was nearer to its destination?
(1)At the time when the two trains passed, train P had averaged a speed of 70 miles per hour.
(2)Train Q averaged a speed of 55 miles per hour for the entire trip.
Let's try answering this with a lot less math, which should always be your goal in data sufficiency. Remember, we don't care what the answer is, we just care if we can get an answer!
Let's start by really understanding the question. We know the distance and we know at what time the trains pass each other. In order to determine which one is closer to its destination, we need to know their relative speeds (we don't even need to know their actual speeds - just knowing that one is moving faster than the other would be sufficient).
(1) Gives us the speed of P up until the trains met. Well, we can certainly figure out exactly where train P would be (and since it's where they pass, we know where Q would be as well) if we know P's time and rate, so we could see which one is closer to the end of the trip: sufficient.
(2) This statement is kind of nasty! Just because train Q averaged 55mph for the entire trip, we can't assume that train Q was moving at a constant speed. For all we know, train Q traveled part of the trip at 80mph and another part at 30mph. Since we don't know how quickly Q was traveling for the first part of the journey (i.e. until they met), we have no way of calculating how close the two trains were to their destinations: insufficient.
(1) is suff and (2) isn't: choose (A).