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
is p a Wagstaff prime
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
p and q are prime numbers > 0
1. p = q
p = (2^p +1) / 3
if we take p = q = 2,
2 = 5/3 (NOT TRUE)
if we take p = q = 3,
3 = 9/3 = 3 (TRUE)
Hence Not sufficient
2. q = 30*3 or 2 * 3^2 * 5
p = 2^90 + 1 / 3
for any p say 2, right hand side of the euation will be a very very big number such that even its division by 3 would never make it equal to p
2 = 2^90 + 1 / 3 ( a very huge number)
this will be true for any number.
hence p is NOT a WAGSTAFF PRIME
I would say B is sufficient
Answer would be B for me.
1. p = q
p = (2^p +1) / 3
if we take p = q = 2,
2 = 5/3 (NOT TRUE)
if we take p = q = 3,
3 = 9/3 = 3 (TRUE)
Hence Not sufficient
2. q = 30*3 or 2 * 3^2 * 5
p = 2^90 + 1 / 3
for any p say 2, right hand side of the euation will be a very very big number such that even its division by 3 would never make it equal to p
2 = 2^90 + 1 / 3 ( a very huge number)
this will be true for any number.
hence p is NOT a WAGSTAFF PRIME
I would say B is sufficient
Answer would be B for me.
[spoiler]Solution: B
Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT. Simplify statement (2):
30=1
, and
1∗3=3
, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given.
((23)+1)3
=
93=3
, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).[/spoiler]
Start with the easier statement first. If p = q, p and q could be any integer, but to answer the question we must know if both p and q are prime; statement (1) is INSUFFICIENT. Simplify statement (2):
30=1
, and
1∗3=3
, so q = 3. Now plug it into the formula given.
((23)+1)3
=
93=3
, so p = 3. This is prime, so statement (2) is SUFFICIENT on its own; (B).[/spoiler]
my ans was D:
1.since P & Q both are prime(given)...the only was p=q is that p=q=3.No other condition makes p=q which is given in statement 1..Hence sufficient.
But IT SEEMS THAT its ONLY given that Q is prime.HENCE THIS IS ACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT.
2.AS far as statement 2 goes,
q=(3^0)*3
means q=3, thus making p Wagstaff prime.
Hence B.
1.since P & Q both are prime(given)...the only was p=q is that p=q=3.No other condition makes p=q which is given in statement 1..Hence sufficient.
But IT SEEMS THAT its ONLY given that Q is prime.HENCE THIS IS ACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT.
2.AS far as statement 2 goes,
q=(3^0)*3
means q=3, thus making p Wagstaff prime.
Hence B.
well i really dont thing that answer of this is B .it has to be D .plz note that while following ST 1 we have to follow the basic equation given in the question .doing so will give us just one value of P and Q ,which is 3 .
we cannot take any random value of P being equal to Q and which is not satisfying the basic equation
yes if there does exist some other non prime for which P = Q and the basic eq also hold true then the answer can be B
we cannot take any random value of P being equal to Q and which is not satisfying the basic equation
yes if there does exist some other non prime for which P = Q and the basic eq also hold true then the answer can be B
I have to disagree with you.aditya8062 wrote:well i really dont thing that answer of this is B .it has to be D .plz note that while following ST 1 we have to follow the basic equation given in the question .doing so will give us just one value of P and Q ,which is 3 .
we cannot take any random value of P being equal to Q and which is not satisfying the basic equation
yes if there does exist some other non prime for which P = Q and the basic eq also hold true then the answer can be B
The basic goal of data sufficiancy is wether you can tell if a mathematical question can be answered with the constrains you have mentioned in the question.
The main question is: is p a Wgstaff prime. And in mathematical terms: Does p=((2^q)+1)/3 hold.
The first constraint is in the question stem: p and q are both positive and both integers.
And in A you also know that p and q are the same number. According to the Manhattan system you are looking for values where the question cant be answered for sure.
Now lets try to find cases that fit the constrains but result in different answers:
1) p=q=2 leads to the equation 2=5/3
so p is not a Wgstaff prime
2) p=q=3 leads to the equation 3=3
so is a Wgstaff prime
So A is insufficient
That B is sufficient is proven above.
The answer is: B
