Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

confused on question DS #70 in the OG12

Expert replies
by bynddrvn » Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:18 am
I understand how you could answer this question with both statement 1 & 2, but not each one by themselves.

"Mary persuaded n friends to donate $500 each to her election campaign, and then each of these n friends persuaded n more people to donate $500 each to Mary's campaign. If no one donated more than once and if there were no other donations, what was the value of n?

(1) The first n people donated 1/16 of the total amount donated.

(2) The total amount donated was $120,000."

What I don't understand is how you can answer this question, without knowing how many people each n original people pulled in? Couldn't each original n person pull in 5 people, 16 people? From the first statement we can figure out that each of the original n people are 1/16th of the total, but we don't know what the original number of people are, correct? From the second statement, we know the upward bound and can easily answer the question. Am I missing something simple?
Last edited by bynddrvn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by supremelegacy » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:13 am
the problem says"...EACH of these n friends persuaded n more friends...". Doesn't that mean each one of those first n people got n new people which should give a total of n x n x n x...... n times? But the solution says that those n guys got n more guys which is n x n. this is not correct if EACH of those n guys got another n guys. And the solution won't be possible in that case. I feel the language of this question is misleading. otherwise, each statement in itself is sufficient to answer.
Join the discussion

bynddrvn wrote:I understand how you could answer this question with both statement 1 & 2, but not each one by themselves.

"Mary persuaded n friends to donate $500 each to her election campaign, and then each of these n friends persuaded n more people to donate $500 each to Mary's campaign. If no one donated more than once and if there were no other donations, what was the value of n?

(1) The first n people donated 1/16 of the total amount donated.

(2) The total amount donated was $120,000."

What I don't understand is how you can answer this question, without knowing how many people each n original people pulled in? Couldn't each original n person pull in 5 people, 16 people? From the first statement we can figure out that each of the original n people are 1/16th of the total, but we don't know what the original number of people are, correct? From the second statement, we know the upward bound and can easily answer the question. Am I missing something simple?
It states clearly in the stem "each of these n friends persuaded n more people..".

Here's a fundamental rule for math: no matter how many times a variable appears in a problem, it will always have the same value.

So, when we break down the stem we see that:

round 1: n donors
round 2: n*n donors (since each of the n donors recruits n more donors)

So, total number of donors is n + n^2 and total money raised is 500(n + n^2).

(1) If the first n donors donated 1/16 of the total, we know that:

part/whole = 1/16

n/(n + n^2) = 1/16

16n = n + n^2
15n - n^2 = 0
n(15 - n) = 0

so n=0 or n=15

Now, one could argue that it's possible for there to be 0 people; however, on the GMAT when we speak about objects, we can assume that n does not equal 0.

(If you look at the OG explanation, it actually says "Assuming n>0" without any further elucidation.)

Therefore, n=15... sufficient.

(2) We can use our total value equation to solve with this information:

500(n + n^2) = 120000
n + n^2 = 120000/500
n^2 + n = 240
n^2 + n - 240 = 0

we want two numbers that multiply to 240 and are 1 apart:

(n+16)(n-15) = 0

n = -16 or n = 15; we can't have a negative number of donors, so n must be 15... sufficient.

Of course, we really didn't need (or want) to do all that math - as soon as we saw that each equation would yield only one positive solution, we knew that each was sufficient alone.

* * *

As an aside, this is DS#70 from OG12 (at least my copy).
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

Got it - one variable only

by bynddrvn » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:47 am
Ok, thank you. For some reason, I kept assuming there were two variables, not one.

FYI, I corrected the Q# so others can find this answer if they need it.
Join the discussion