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

Redeem

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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 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
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
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
GMATOnDemand Start 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

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

DS - Is n be divisible by 4

Expert replies
by zoe » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:08 am
Dear All

Here is a DS - Is n be divisible by 4
As the attached picture.

My answer is B, I disagree with statement #1 is sufficient,
cuz I have an example:
if N square = 64, obviously is divisible by 8, than n square root = 4√2 ̄, obviously, it is not divisible by 4, so my answer is insufficient.

any wrong here?
please help
Image
[/img]
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by [email protected] » Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:40 am
Hi zoe,

Can you post the full question (or type it out)? The image file that you attached doesn't link to an image.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Join the discussion

by zoe » Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:23 pm
[email protected] wrote:Hi zoe,

Can you post the full question (or type it out)? The image file that you attached doesn't link to an image.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Ok,
I didn't input the whole question yesterday because I did not know how to input some math marks.
Maybe input the whole question and add a comment will be better,

A comment:
n2 appearing in the following question means n square, n1/2 appearing in the following question means n square root

please read the following question:

Is positive integer n divisible by 4?
(1) n2 is divisible by 8.
(2) n1/2 is a even integer.

the answer is that each statement alone is sufficient,
I have different idea, I think statement #1 is insufficient, because:
if given n2 = 64, 64 is obviously divisible by 8, and n1/2 = 4√2 ̄, it is not divisible by 4,
if given n2 = 16, 16 can be obviously by 4,
based on these two given examples above, whether statement #1 is sufficient is depending on the value of n2,
thus, I think statement #1 is insufficient.

please help if I made a mistake.

thanks a lot.
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:37 pm
Zoe, when considering S1 on its own, you don't need to consider S2.

That said, if you know that n² = 8 * something, you have

n * n = 2 * 2 * 2 * something

Since each n is the same, each n must have the same number of 2s in it. We can't have one n = 2 and the other n = 2 * 2; then we'd have different values for the same letter!

So each n must = 2 * 2 * (whatever else), and we know n = 4 * something. That might make √n an even integer and it might not, but we don't really care: we've answered what we were asked.("Yes, n IS divisible by 4.")
Join the discussion

by zoe » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:30 pm
Matt@VeritasPrep wrote:Zoe, when considering S1 on its own, you don't need to consider S2.
Zoe wrote:if given n2 = 64, 64 is obviously divisible by 8, and n = 4√2 ̄ (here should be n, and I input n1/2 mistakenly ), it is not divisible by 4,
Dear Matt,
Thanks for your solution.

first, I input n1/2 mistakenly, it should be n = 4√2 ̄
I think I still need your explanation for my given value , n2= 64, n = 4√2 ̄, cannot be divisible by 4,
obviously, here is a value that shows the statement #1 is insufficient.

Please help.
Join the discussion

by 800_or_bust » Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:27 pm
Matt@VeritasPrep wrote:Zoe, when considering S1 on its own, you don't need to consider S2.

That said, if you know that n² = 8 * something, you have

n * n = 2 * 2 * 2 * something

Since each n is the same, each n must have the same number of 2s in it. We can't have one n = 2 and the other n = 2 * 2; then we'd have different values for the same letter!

So each n must = 2 * 2 * (whatever else), and we know n = 4 * something. That might make √n an even integer and it might not, but we don't really care: we've answered what we were asked.("Yes, n IS divisible by 4.")
Yes, and we already know from the original prompt that n must be a positive integer. That removes the possibility where n^2=8, which would satisfy (1) but in that case n would equal 2*(2)^(0.5), which conflicts with the requirement that n be a positive integer.

So I think it's important to note the proof you gave works because n must be an integer. Therefore, n must contain at least two factors of two. If we weren't constrained by that, (1) alone wouldn't be sufficient. Am I correct in that assessment?
800 or bust!
Join the discussion

by zoe » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:36 pm
800_or_bust wrote: Yes, and we already know from the original prompt that n must be a positive integer. That removes the possibility where n^2=8, which would satisfy (1) but in that case n would equal 2*(2)^(0.5), which conflicts with the requirement that n be a positive integer.

So I think it's important to note the proof you gave works because n must be an integer. Therefore, n must contain at least two factors of two. If we weren't constrained by that, (1) alone wouldn't be sufficient. Am I correct in that assessment?

Thanks so much.
I got it.

Have a nice day.
>_~
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:02 pm
800_or_bust wrote:So I think it's important to note the proof you gave works because n must be an integer. Therefore, n must contain at least two factors of two. If we weren't constrained by that, (1) alone wouldn't be sufficient. Am I correct in that assessment?
Yup, this is correct. Since we're told in the prompt that n is an integer, we only need to consider integer solutions, but if we were considering all numbers, we'd have

n² = 8k, where k is some integer we don't care about

n = 2√(2k)

So if n is an integer, then it's an even integer, but whether it's an integer at all depends on the value of k.
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:04 pm
zoe wrote:
Matt@VeritasPrep wrote:Zoe, when considering S1 on its own, you don't need to consider S2.
Zoe wrote:if given n2 = 64, 64 is obviously divisible by 8, and n = 4√2 ̄ (here should be n, and I input n1/2 mistakenly ), it is not divisible by 4,
Dear Matt,
Thanks for your solution.

first, I input n1/2 mistakenly, it should be n = 4√2 ̄
I think I still need your explanation for my given value , n2= 64, n = 4√2 ̄, cannot be divisible by 4,
obviously, here is a value that shows the statement #1 is insufficient.

Please help.
If n² = 64, then n = 8, so n would be divisible by 4.
Join the discussion