Nate Dogg sings hooks for two different prices: $52 for an EP and $58 for an LP. How many EP hooks did he sing?
(1) Nate sang a total of 9 hooks
(2) Nate earned $492 from singing hooks
This is the explanation of the answer:
Let's see if it's even possible for him to sing anything more than or less than 9. If he were to sing 8, to keep his profit at $492 while selling fewer items, he'd want to focus on more expensive items. And even the most expensive, $58, won't net him enough for a total of 8: 8 x 58 = $464, which is not enough. Trying the same thing for 10, we find that even 10 of the least expensive items, $52, is too much: 10 x $52 = $520, and that's too much. So, therefore, statement 2 guarantees statement 1 without our needing to be told so explicitly. Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient alone, and the correct answer is B.
I understand the below piece
"Let's see if it's even possible for him to sing anything more than or less than 9. If he were to sing 8, to keep his profit at $492 while selling fewer items, he'd want to focus on more expensive items. And even the most expensive, $58, won't net him enough for a total of 8: 8 x 58 = $464, which is not enough. Trying the same thing for 10, we find that even 10 of the least expensive items, $52, is too much: 10 x $52 = $520, and that's too much. So, therefore, statement 2 guarantees statement 1 without our needing to be told so explicitly."
But I don't get the one below:
Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient alone, and the correct answer is B.
How are we saying that B is sufficient without proving that it is sufficient. I answered it correctly by doing math and proving that B is right, but my approach (of doing math) on this kind of problems will definitely take more than 2 mins. But the blog's author's approach looks quite intuitive.
Can someone explain?
This is the original post:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/12/ ... knight-way
(1) Nate sang a total of 9 hooks
(2) Nate earned $492 from singing hooks
This is the explanation of the answer:
Let's see if it's even possible for him to sing anything more than or less than 9. If he were to sing 8, to keep his profit at $492 while selling fewer items, he'd want to focus on more expensive items. And even the most expensive, $58, won't net him enough for a total of 8: 8 x 58 = $464, which is not enough. Trying the same thing for 10, we find that even 10 of the least expensive items, $52, is too much: 10 x $52 = $520, and that's too much. So, therefore, statement 2 guarantees statement 1 without our needing to be told so explicitly. Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient alone, and the correct answer is B.
I understand the below piece
"Let's see if it's even possible for him to sing anything more than or less than 9. If he were to sing 8, to keep his profit at $492 while selling fewer items, he'd want to focus on more expensive items. And even the most expensive, $58, won't net him enough for a total of 8: 8 x 58 = $464, which is not enough. Trying the same thing for 10, we find that even 10 of the least expensive items, $52, is too much: 10 x $52 = $520, and that's too much. So, therefore, statement 2 guarantees statement 1 without our needing to be told so explicitly."
But I don't get the one below:
Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient alone, and the correct answer is B.
How are we saying that B is sufficient without proving that it is sufficient. I answered it correctly by doing math and proving that B is right, but my approach (of doing math) on this kind of problems will definitely take more than 2 mins. But the blog's author's approach looks quite intuitive.
Can someone explain?
This is the original post:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/12/ ... knight-way
