IMO B.
What is the value of A.
a^n is multiple of 8!.
the 1st statment says that a^n = 64.it could be 2^6 or 4^3.
Insufficient.
the 2nd statment says that n = 6 i.e a^6 is multiple of 8!.
sufficient.
Its a C trap question so be careful.
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Gmat prep1 ds3
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
@abhinav85
How do you determine, under 2 minutes, that a^6 may not result in 2 values. Based on that alone I eliminated option 2 and went with C.
How do you determine, under 2 minutes, that a^6 may not result in 2 values. Based on that alone I eliminated option 2 and went with C.
thats because..8! = 2*3*4*5*6*7*8.. get in terms of prime itegers..
8! = 2^7*3^2*5*7.....so to come to a^6 form only 2 can ascertain and none ..hence stmnt alone is ok
8! = 2^7*3^2*5*7.....so to come to a^6 form only 2 can ascertain and none ..hence stmnt alone is ok
sorry rohan 
I don't understand what you mean
How do the prime factorizations give a clue to statement 2's sufficiency?
I don't understand what you mean How do the prime factorizations give a clue to statement 2's sufficiency?
Prime factors were just a way to get to the lowest levels of factors..u r right that alone getting into terms of prime integers doesnt suffice..
But if you see 8! , you only 2 is having power >=6 .. any combination of factor which you can thus derive is not even close to 6 in its power..
Either you take 6 , 64 , 8 , , whatever
Answer would have been E if there would there would any possibility of getting any factor whose pwoer coluld have been of the form >=6
But if you see 8! , you only 2 is having power >=6 .. any combination of factor which you can thus derive is not even close to 6 in its power..
Either you take 6 , 64 , 8 , , whatever
Answer would have been E if there would there would any possibility of getting any factor whose pwoer coluld have been of the form >=6
OA IS Brohan_vus wrote:Prime factors were just a way to get to the lowest levels of factors..u r right that alone getting into terms of prime integers doesnt suffice..
But if you see 8! , you only 2 is having power >=6 .. any combination of factor which you can thus derive is not even close to 6 in its power..
Either you take 6 , 64 , 8 , , whatever
Answer would have been E if there would there would any possibility of getting any factor whose pwoer coluld have been of the form >=6
However I have the same doubt as obgeni and not cleared, could u try again...
I agree with rohan over here.Prime factors were just a way to get to the lowest levels of factors..u r right that alone getting into terms of prime integers doesnt suffice..
But if you see 8! , you only 2 is having power >=6 .. any combination of factor which you can thus derive is not even close to 6 in its power..
Either you take 6 , 64 , 8 , , whatever
Answer would have been E if there would there would any possibility of getting any factor whose pwoer coluld have been of the form >=6
Ok.. let me put it this way..
When u get any number in terms of prime factors.. you are at the rootest levels of factors , which in other words is nothing but lowest levels of factors.. I guess atleast you will agree with me on this theory
Later , any other non prime factor which you get is derived by multiplying prime factors itslef.. for e.g .. 20 = is written as 2^2*5.. how many different factors it can have.. it can have 2 , 4 , 5 , 10 ... 4 u get by 2^2 ..and 10 u get by 2 *5 ...
Now our focus was the powers of the factors..Any non prime factor when its bulit ( like 10 and 4) from prime factors will always have least of the powers among the powers of individual prime factors of which its made of .
I dont know i make sense here
When u get any number in terms of prime factors.. you are at the rootest levels of factors , which in other words is nothing but lowest levels of factors.. I guess atleast you will agree with me on this theory
Later , any other non prime factor which you get is derived by multiplying prime factors itslef.. for e.g .. 20 = is written as 2^2*5.. how many different factors it can have.. it can have 2 , 4 , 5 , 10 ... 4 u get by 2^2 ..and 10 u get by 2 *5 ...
Now our focus was the powers of the factors..Any non prime factor when its bulit ( like 10 and 4) from prime factors will always have least of the powers among the powers of individual prime factors of which its made of .
I dont know i make sense here
