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.

GMAT Prep question - really tough one - LCM, GCF factor etc.

Expert replies
by psriniva » Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:26 pm
Sorry about the previous incomplete test.

The integers m and p are such that 2 is less than m and m is less than p. Also, m is not a factor of p.

If r is the remainder when p is divided by m, is r > 1.

1. The greatest common factor of m and p is 2.
2. The least common multiple of m and p is 30.

The correct answer is A

Your help is appreciated.

Paddy
Paddy Srinivas
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by ildude02 » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:25 pm
This seems to be tricky question. Is the answerr A? Since GF is 2, both M and P should be multiples of 2 and taking some examples, I see, that the remiander is always > 1. At the same time I'm not 100% sure.

I hope if someone has a better explanation.
Join the discussion

by netigen » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:30 pm
A tells us that the two numbers are even. So the remainder will always be a +ve even number.
Join the discussion

by ildude02 » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:35 pm
netigen, any easy way to solve the second choice ?
Join the discussion

by netigen » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:55 pm
From B:

2<m<p<30

First factor 30 as 2x3x5

Now figure out possible numbers less than 30 greater than 2 that have 30 as LCM (use the factors)

(1) 5 x 6 remainder is 1 so r=1
(2) 10 x 15 remainder is 5 so r=5 or r> 1

we have r=1 and r>1 so insufficient
Join the discussion

psriniva wrote:Sorry about the previous incomplete test.

The integers m and p are such that 2 is less than m and m is less than p. Also, m is not a factor of p.

If r is the remainder when p is divided by m, is r > 1.

1. The greatest common factor of m and p is 2.
2. The least common multiple of m and p is 30.

The correct answer is A

Your help is appreciated.

Paddy
From statement (2) one thing can be inferred that both m and p are factors of 30.
The factors of 30 are : 1,2,3,5,6,10,15&30
Since m& p are both greater than 2, lets take the combinations possible from 3 onwards.

The possible pairs of numbers satisfying the conditions (m is not a factor of p and LCM of m&p is 30) are:
(3,10); (5,6); (6,10);(10,15).

Except for the pairs (3,10) & (5,6) all other pairs satisfy the requirements of the answer (Remainder r>1 when m divides p).

So the condition : "The least common multiple of m and p is 30." itself does not satisfy the requirements. Hence insuf.

So answer choice is (A).
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Sun May 17, 2009 1:38 am
Ian,
Can you please help us understand it better?
Regards
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Join the discussion

by aj5105 » Sun May 17, 2009 2:00 am
m, p are integers; 2 < m < p ; p is not divisible by m. r is the remainder.

r > 1 : YES

r < 1 : NO

Statement 1 : Consider numbers such as 4-6, 6-8, 8-10. Their GCF is 2 and the remainder is 2.

Sufficient.

Statement 2: Consider 5-6. The remainder is 1. Consider 2-15. The remainder is >1.

InSufficient.

(A)
Join the discussion

by crackgmat007 » Sun May 31, 2009 8:58 pm
Statement 2: Consider 5-6. The remainder is 1. Consider 2-15. The remainder is >1.

Can you help me understand this pls?
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun May 31, 2009 9:10 pm
crackgmat007 wrote:
Statement 2: Consider 5-6. The remainder is 1. Consider 2-15. The remainder is >1.

Can you help me understand this pls?
First, 2-15 don't work, since 2 < m < p

However, as stated in posts above, the pairs 5/6 and 10/15 both satisfy the condition in (2), i.e. the lowest common multiple of m and p is 30.

Now that we have "legal" numbers (i.e. they follow all the rules that we're given), we can plug them back into the original question, "does p/m have a remainder greater than 1?"

If m=5 and p=6, then p/m has a remainder of 1. Is 1 > 1? NO

If m=10 and p=15, then p/m has a remainder of 5. Is 5 > 1? YES

Since we can get both a YES and NO answer from statement (2), it's insufficient.
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

by aj5105 » Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Consider m to be 5 and p to be 6. When we divide 6 by 5, the remainder is 1.

No consider m to be 6 and p to 10. When we divide 10 by 6, the remainder is 4. [Sorry, I made a mistake here]

Is it clear now why (B) is insufficient?


crackgmat007 wrote:
Statement 2: Consider 5-6. The remainder is 1. Consider 2-15. The remainder is >1.

Can you help me understand this pls?
Join the discussion

by ghacker » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:15 pm
Statement A is sufficient , Why?

It is given that 2<m<p and from statement I we know that the GCD is 2
that tells us that we can write m as 2*K and p as 2*S where K and S are relatively prime but P>m hence S>K so S/K >1 that tells us r is >1

Statement B is insufficient , Why ?

We are told that THE LCM is 30 , then m and p can take all the factors of 30,with out violating the given conditions ,but then m=15 and p=30 then r=0
also if m=6 and p=30 then r>1 hence B is insufficient :lol:
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:21 am
whew! this one is a serious cacophony of rephrasing and interpretation.

let's translate:
m is not a factor of p.
if m were a factor of p, then the remainder upon dividing p by m would be 0.

therefore, we can translate the above statement as follows:
"the remainder upon dividing p by m is not 0."
in other words, it's an integer greater than 0.

--

the question:
is r > 1 ?
here's a HIGH-LEVEL INTERPRETATION of this problem.

if the remainder WERE 1, then p would be 1 more than a multiple of m.
if this is the case, then p and m CANNOT have any common factors, other than 1. (this is so because all factors of m are factors of (p-1), which is a multiple of m; a number greater than 1 can't be a factor of both (p-1) and p, which are consecutive integers.)

therefore, if m and p have common factors, then the answer to this question is YES.

(note that the converse is not necessarily true: even if there are no common factors, the answer still could be yes. for instance, 17 divided by 6 leaves a remainder of 5, even though 17 and 6 have no common factors. but, if we can establish that there are common factors, then that's enough to show that the answer is Yes.)

--

statement (1)

if this is true, then m and p have the factor 2 in common, so, YES.
sufficient.

--

statement (2)

this doesn't tell you whether m and p have common factors.
if m = 5 and p = 6, for instance, then r = 1.
if m = 10 and p = 15, then r = 5, which is > 1.
insufficient.

ans (a)

--
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:21 am
secondary solution: (because the primary solution above is fairly obnoxious)

JUST PLUG IN NUMBERS.


statement (1)

let's just PICK A WHOLE BUNCH OF NUMBERS WHOSE GCF IS 2 and watch what happens. let's try to make the numbers diverse.
say,
4 and 6
6 and 8
8 and 10
10 and 12
...
4 and 10
6 and 14
6 and 16
8 and 18
8 and 22
...
in all nine of these examples, the remainders are greater than 1. in fact, there is an obvious pattern, which is that they're all even, since the numbers in question must be even.

in fact, i just thought of this, which is a much nicer, more ground-level approach to statement one:
in statement 1, both m and p are even. therefore, the remainder is even, so it's greater than 1.

done.

sufficient.

--

statement (2)
just pick various numbers whose lcm is 30.
notice the numbers selected above:
5 and 6 --> remainder = 1
10 and 15 --> remainder = 5 > 1
insufficient.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by navalpike » Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:19 am
Or……..

Just notice that S1 says

“If r is the remainder when p is divided by m, is r > 1.

1. The greatest common factor of m and p is 2.”

This simply means that both m & p are multiples of 2 (since their common factor is 2)
M=2k
P=2s

We actually know more than this such as m<p and m is not a factor of p, but that should not change our method.

P=m+r
2s=2k+r
2s-2k=r
2(s-k)=r

We know that r cannot be 0. This says that the remainder is a multiple of 2 and thus, r>1. Sufficient.

S2 Insufficient as shown above. (Although I would welcome a more algebraic approach rather than pick numbers for LCM 30. The first time I got the problem wrong because I failed to consider 10 & 6)
Join the discussion