Divisors

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:20 am
Thanked: 3 times

Divisors

by manik11 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:44 am
If n is an integer, is the sum of all of n's divisors, which are not equal to n or equal to one, greater than 100?

(1) 3 and 96 are divisors of n that are neither equal to n nor equal to one.
(2) 3 and 97 are divisors of n that are neither equal to n nor equal to one.

OA : A
Source : BellCurves
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:25 am
manik11 wrote:If n is an integer, is the sum of all of n's divisors, which are not equal to n or equal to one, greater than 100?

(1) 3 and 96 are divisors of n that are neither equal to n nor equal to one.
(2) 3 and 97 are divisors of n that are neither equal to n nor equal to one.

OA : A
Source : BellCurves
Statement 1:
Any integer divisible by 96 will also be divisible by 3.
Since 96 is a factor of n that is not EQUAL to n, n must be a multiple of 96 such that n > 96:
192, 288...
If n is equal to any value in this list, its factors will include 2, 4 and 96, so the sum of its factors between 1 and n will be GREATER THAN 100.
SUFFICIENT.

Statement 2:
Since 3 and 97 are both prime, n must be a multiple of 3 and 97:
291, 582...
If n=291, then the sum of its factors between 1 and n = 3+97 = 100.
In this case, the answer to the question stem is NO.
If n=582, then its factors include 2, 3 and 97, so the sum of its factors between 1 and n will be GREATER THAN 100.
In this case, the answer to the question stem is YES.
INSUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:32 pm
Location: East Bay all the way
Thanked: 625 times
Followed by:119 members
GMAT Score:780

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:20 pm
We can also provide a neat formula for this.

Suppose we have the number 30. We know that 30 = 2 * 3 * 5, so any factor of 30 must have zero or one 2's, zero or one 3's, or zero or one 5's. To find ALL the factors, we just foil!

(1 + 2) * (1 + 3) * (1 + 5) =

(1 + 2 + 3 + 6) * (1 + 5) =

(1 + 2 + 3 + 6 + 5 + 10 + 15 + 30)

Aha!

So given any number, we can use a similar trick.

S1::

Since n > 96, we know n is a multiple of 96, e.g. 192, 288, etc. In any of those cases, our sum will be at least (1 + 3 + ...) * (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + ...) - 1 - n. Since we have AT LEAST

(1 + 3) * (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32) - 1 - 96

or

155, we know that we'll always have a sum > 100. Sufficient!

S2::

Our number could be 3*97, which gives a sum of (1 + 3) * (1 + 97) - 1 - 291, or 100, or it could be something much bigger, which would have a greater sum. Not sufficient!