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
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget 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.

intergers and multiple - og

Expert replies
by clawhammer » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:36 am
Please provide me a quick approach and a general theory to attack a question like this:

Image

I dont think the OG method described in explanation is possible for me to solve in 2 mins. :(
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:57 am
Hey Clawhammer:

Keep in mind that the OG solutions are much more concerned with being precise than with being helpful (I think they'll even admit that), so I'm glad you brought this one to the board!

With divisibility questions, it's almost always a good decision to use PRIME FACTORIZATION to determine exactly what you need. In this question:

We're given: x is a multiple of 6 and y is a multiple of 14.

So we can derive: x brings prime factors 2 and 3 and y brings prime factors 2 and 7.

They ask: Is xy a multiple of 105?

So they're really asking: Does xy have prime factors 3, 5, and 7?

But the given information already tells us that x brings a 3 and y brings a 7, so all we really need to know is:

Is either x or y a multiple of 5?


Statement 1 gives us:

x is a multiple of 9, or therefore of 3 * 3

This is not sufficient...we need a 5, and this one doesn't give it to us.

Statement 2 gives us:

y is a multiple of 25, or therefore of 5 * 5

This gives us the 5 we need, and is therefore sufficient! The answer is B.



Prime factorization is a pretty efficient way to determine exactly what you need in a divisibility-related question, so when in doubt, factor it out!
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
Join the discussion

by clawhammer » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:05 am
Thanks a lot Brian. It makes proper sense.

One thing that has really got me thinking is: "x can be = (2)(3)(3)(5)" then too is x a multiple of both 6 and 9. How can I make sure, I can find all possible primes? Like I wont miss out the 5.

For Example: IF the second option confirmed that there was no 5 as a prime factor for y, then I could think, by COMBINING both, I'm sure that the answer is NO, therefore 'C'. But that would be mistaken, as it would become insufficient, as there is also a possibility of 5 for x.
Join the discussion

by Testluv » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:12 am
clawhammer wrote:
For Example: IF the second option confirmed that there was no 5 as a prime factor for y, then I could think, by COMBINING both, I'm sure that the answer is NO, therefore 'C'. But that would be mistaken, as it would become insufficient, as there is also a possibility of 5 for x.
Hi,

as Brian pointed out, we know that xy's prime factorization is minimally 2*2*3*7. But 105's prime factorization is 3*5*7. Because we already know that xy contains 3 and 7 as prime factors, in order for xy to be a multiple of 105, all we need to know is whether EITHER x or y is a multiple of 5 (i.e., has a 5 as a prime factor)...but we do NEED to KNOW whether at least one of them is a multiple of 5.

In your hypothetical, (2) states that 5 is not a prime factor of y. But if (2) stated that y was not a multiple of 5, it would still leave open the possibility that x is a multiple of 5.

We know from the original that x is a multiple of 6. From (1) we know that x is a multiple of 9 as well. But we wouldn't know whether or not x is a multiple of 5. If it is a multiple of 5 (for example, x could be 6*9*5) then the answer to the question would be "yes". But if it isn't a multiple of 5 (for example, x may just be 6*9) , then answer would be "no". So, in this hypo, the answer would be E.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion