The concept please explain-90

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:47 am
Location: Delhi, India
Thanked: 344 times
Followed by:86 members

by Anju@Gurome » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:06 pm
[email protected] wrote:If k, m, and t are positive integers and k/6+ m/4 = t/12 do t and 12 have a common factor greater than 1 ?

(1) k is a multiple of 3.
(2) m is a multiple of 3.
k/6 + m/4 = t/12 ---> 2k + 3m = t

Statement 1: Let us assume k = 3a, where a is some positive integer.
Then, t = 2*(3a) + 3m = 3*(2a) + 3m = 3*(2a + m)
So, t is a multiple of 3.
--> t and 12 have a common factor greater than 1.

Sufficient

Statement 2: Let us assume m = 3b, where b is some positive integer.
Then, t = 2k + 3*(3b)
We cannot determine whether t and 12 have a common factor greater than 1 or not.

For example, consider the following two cases...
  • k = 2 and m = 3 ---> t = 2*2 + 3*3 = 13 --> No common factor greater than 1
    k = 3 and m = 3 ---> t = 2*3 + 3*3 = 15 --> 3 is a common factor greater than 1
Not sufficient

The correct answer is A.
Anju Agarwal
Quant Expert, Gurome

Backup Methods : General guide on plugging, estimation etc.
Wavy Curve Method : Solving complex inequalities in a matter of seconds.

§ GMAT with Gurome § Admissions with Gurome § Career Advising with Gurome §

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:30 am
[email protected] wrote:If k, m, and t are positive integers and
k/6+ m/4 = t/12
do t and 12 have a common factor greater than 1 ?
(1) k is a multiple of 3.
(2) m is a multiple of 3.
Target question: Do t and 12 have a common factor (divisor) greater than 1?


A little background information
For questions involving factors (aka "divisors"), we can say:
If k is a divisor of N, then k is "hiding" within the prime factorization of N
Examples:
3 is a divisor of 24 <--> 24 = (2)(2)(2)(3)
5 is a divisor of 70 <--> 70 = (2)(5)(7)
8 is a divisor of 56 <--> 56 = (2)(2)(2)(7)

Similarly, for questions involving multiples, we can say:
If N is a multiple of k, then k is "hiding" within the prime factorization of N
Examples:
24 is a multiple of 3 <--> 24 = (2)(2)(2)(3)
70 is a multiple of 5 <--> (2)(5)(7)
330 is a multiple of 6 <--> 330 = (2)(3)(5)(11)

Okay, now let's solve the question....

Given: (k/6)+ (m/4) = (t/12)
Simplify this by multiplying both sides by 12 to get 2k + 3m = t

Statement 1: k is a multiple of 3.
In other words, 3 is hiding in the prime factorization of k
So, we know that k =(3)(?)(?)(?)...

Aside: notice that the prime factorization of k may or may not have any primes other than the 3. All we can be certain of is that there is one 3 within the prime factorization (thus the question marks in the factorization)

From here, we'll take our given information, 2k + 3m = t, and replace k with (3)(?)(?)(?) to get: (2)(3)(?)(?)(?) + 3m = t
At this point, we can factor out a 3 to get: 3[(2)(?)(?)(?) + m] = t, which means 3 is a divisor of t.
Since 3 is also a divisor of 12, we can see that t and 12 have a common factor (divisor) greater than 1.
Since we can answer the target question with certainty, statement 1 is SUFFICIENT

Statement 2: m is a multiple of 3.
In other words, 3 is hiding in the prime factorization of m
So, we know that m =(3)(?)(?)(?)...
From here, we'll take our given information, 2k + 3m = t, and replace m with (3)(?)(?)(?) to get: 2k + 3(3)(?)(?)(?) = t
At this point, we cannot factor out any number from the expression.
So, we cannot determine whether t has any divisors (factors) in common with 12
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT

Aside:
To demonstrate that statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT, consider these two contradictory sets of values for k, m and t.
case a: k=3, m=3, t=15, in which case t and 12 have a common factor (divisor) greater than 1.
case b: k=1, m=3, t=11, in which case t and 12 do not have a common factor (divisor) greater than 1.

Cheers,
Brent

By the way, here's another question we can solve using prime factorization: https://www.beatthegmat.com/divisibility-t91797.html
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:38 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:4 members

by [email protected] » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:59 pm
Thanks Brent!! For explaining the entire concept!

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 pm
Location: Australia / India
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:2 members

by melguy » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:12 pm
Thanks for the detailed explanation Brent!

If I may ask what is the difficulty level of this question? Thanks

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:19 am
melguy wrote:Thanks for the detailed explanation Brent!

If I may ask what is the difficulty level of this question? Thanks
I'd say 700+
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image