typhoonguywlblwu wrote:IMO the answer certainly is d.
Statement 1 is correct.If 50 is in k then 51 be in k and so on ....
Therefore, (1) is sufficient
Statement 2 .The set definition is 'K is a set of integers such that if the integer r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K.' Nowehere it states that the beginning with a certain element,the definition for set is valid.
Hence,If 150 is in K,then 149 will be in k and so on...
Statement (2) is sufficient as well.
If we have an assumption that the set could begin at 150,hence (2) is not valid,then theres nothing stopping us to assume that set set could only have elements till 99,in which case (1) becomes insufficient as well.
The OA D is correct IMHO.
No, Statement 2 is not sufficient.
When considering Statement 1, you cannot, as you suggest, have a set which 'could only have elements till 99', because if 99 is in the set, we know from the stem that 99+1 = 100 must also be in the set (since we know that 'if the integer r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K').
When we know, from Statement 2, that 150 is in the set, we can be certain that 151 is in the set, since "if the integer r is in K, then r + 1 is also in K." And since 151 is in the set, we can be sure 152 is in the set, and so on. But we can't be certain that 149 is in the set; our set could be the infinite set:
{150, 151, 152, 153, 154, ...}
This set fits with the information in Statement 2, and also with the information provided in the stem; whenever r is in the set, r+1 is in the set.
