Let wholesale price = x
Selling price = 1.2x (20% profit on x)

(1)

Reducing listing price by 10% means the selling price = 1.2x - 10% = 1.08x

Profit = 1.08x - x = 10 = > Sufficient to solve for x

(2)
1.2x = 50 => Sufficient to solve for x

Hence, each statement on its own is sufficient (D)

i think answer should be A only...
we dont know from B ,that whether the dress was sold at its list price.....moreover if we assume so, the two statements contradict each other...ie they give different answer

crackinggmat wrote:i think answer should be A only...
we dont know from B ,that whether the dress was sold at its list price.....moreover if we assume so, the two statements contradict each other...ie they give different answer

Hi cracking,

I think it should be safe to assume the dress was sold at list price, since the question stem says it was initially listed at that price. I always look at the options independently, and if you just look at option 2, the question rephrases as:

A dress was initially listed at a price that would have given the store a profit of 20% of the wholesale cost. What is the wholesale cost of the dress, if the dress was sold for $50?

Should the 2 options always result in the same numerical answer? If you follow what I did, then both the statements give the same answer in terms of "yes, we can find out the wholesale cost of the dress from either statements", even though numerically speaking they are both giving different answers.

Any experts would like to clarify please?

kmittal82 wrote:

crackinggmat wrote:i think answer should be A only...
we dont know from B ,that whether the dress was sold at its list price.....moreover if we assume so, the two statements contradict each other...ie they give different answer

Hi cracking,

I think it should be safe to assume the dress was sold at list price, since the question stem says it was initially listed at that price. I always look at the options independently, and if you just look at option 2, the question rephrases as:

A dress was initially listed at a price that would have given the store a profit of 20% of the wholesale cost. What is the wholesale cost of the dress, if the dress was sold for $50?

Should the 2 options always result in the same numerical answer? If you follow what I did, then both the statements give the same answer in terms of "yes, we can find out the wholesale cost of the dress from either statements", even though numerically speaking they are both giving different answers.

Any experts would like to clarify please?

If $x is the wholesale cost of the dress, then the initial list price was $1.2 x. What is x?

(1) This is straight... 0.9 × $1.2 x - $x = $10. Sufficient

(2) If the dress was sold for $50, then this selling price may or may not be the listed price, hence insufficient


[spoiler]A[/spoiler]

I still think the answer should be D. List price is always equal to Selling price. How can we assume a discount was to be given.

crackinggmat wrote:i think answer should be A only...
we dont know from B ,that whether the dress was sold at its list price.....moreover if we assume so, the two statements contradict each other...ie they give different answer

I agree with crackinggmat.

Let s - listed price , b - wholesale cost, profit = s - b
s - b = 0.2b

(1)
0.9s - b = 10
Solving b = 50
SUFFICIENT

(2)
We don't know if the listed price is 50$ or after after reducing the listed price by 10% the price is 50$

If listed price is 50$ and the dress was actually sold at listed price then 50-b=0.2b i.e. b = 41.6$
And if suppose the listed price was reduced by 10% and then the dress was sold at 50$ then s = (500/9)$
and hence b = 66.6$.
INSUFFICIENT

CORRECT ANSWER (A).

[email protected] wrote:I still think the answer should be D. List price is always equal to Selling price. How can we assume a discount was to be given.

If you list me worth 2 cents, are you sure you will be able to sell me for 2 cents?

Moreover, the list price is determined before selling and the selling price is determined after selling.