BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Tough one

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:39 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Tough one

by ranjithreddy.k9 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:39 pm
Q. On a company sponsored tour, 65% of the passengers were company employees and remaining passengers were their guests. 70% of employees, who were married, can invite their spouse to the tour. what will be the ratio of married to unmarried employees?

I.There was a total of 400 couples on the tour.

II.There was a total of 120 bachelors who were present.


a. Statement (I) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (II) alone is not sufficient.
b. Statement (II) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (I) alone is not sufficient.
c. BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
d. Each statement alone is sufficient.
e. Statement (I) and (II) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed.
[spoiler]

OA : B[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Data Sufficiency |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:15 am
If I were to choose an answer I would have chosen E.

What is the source?
Regards,

Pranay
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:28 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by Roy@MasterGmat » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:17 am
There seems to be a problem with the question as posted. Assuming the second sentence indeed means 70% of the employees are married, we could derive that 30% of them are unmarried, thus allowing us to calculate the ratio of married to unmarried employees without the statements (70%:30% --> 7:3).

Perhaps the question asks for the ratio of married to unmarried passengers?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 199 times
Followed by:85 members
GMAT Score:750

by tpr-becky » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:05 am
I think the problem lies in the commas off setting the "who were married" if you take the commas out you find that not every employee is married. Thus you get

.65(P) = E and therefore .35(p)=G

.70(ME) = S (70% of married employees brought a spouse)

we want to know ME/(E-ME).

1) the total number of couples does not help us to find out how many were married and thus is insufficient.
2) if there were 120 bachelors (and assuming that bachelor is the only way to be unmarried) then you can figure out the number of employees - 120 = .30(E) to get 400 employees, then subtract the number of bachelors to supposedly get 280 married employees and 120 unmarried. Thus B would be correct.

I think the real problem is using the word bachelors to mean unmarried employees (there could be women as well).
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1