BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Officials

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

Officials

by avenus » Sun May 31, 2009 10:57 am
There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person
Top
Source: — Data Sufficiency |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members

by aj5105 » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:06 am
What's the source?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

by avenus » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:53 am
Mahattan, I think. why??
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by vineetbatra » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:58 pm
I think answer is E, what is the OA?

Low level official should be a multiple of 2 & 3, and there are several multiples of 2 & 3 under 60.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:42 pm
IMO - E
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:33 am
E for me too.....
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:48 pm
yes should be E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:10 am
I came across this ques so digged this thread up..
The OA for this question is C, source - Manhattan.
Can anyone pls explain how to evaluate statement B here ?

Thanks
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:13 pm
avenus wrote:There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person
do yo have its explanation?
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:26 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:780

by Dani@MasterGMAT » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:19 am
diebeatsthegmat wrote:
avenus wrote:There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person
do yo have its explanation?
Hold on - is it 2x "two times x", or x^2 "x squared"?
If the answer is C, then I believe "x2" and "x3" are in fact "x squared" and "x cubed", in which case x itself will be limited to x=1. If x is greater than 1, for example, x=2, then:
we have 2 high level officials
each supervises 2^2=4 mid level officials - total of 2*4=8 mid level officials.
Each of the 8 mid levels supervises 2^3 = 8 low level officials - for a total of 8*8=64 low levels, which is already over 60 low levels in stat. (1).

Technically, stat. (1) seems to be sufficient on its own in this case, (limits x to 1) but the phrasing of the question apparently allows for low level officials to be supervised by more than one person. Thus, x=2 and we have two high levels, the two high levels could theoretically supervise the same four mid levels (since the question doesn't state that each high level supervises x^2 "different" mid levels), in which case x could equal more than 1 and still satisfy stat. (1). Thus, we need stat. (2) to clarify that each official oversees a different group, in which case any value of x greater than 1 will already push us over the 60 limit.
Dr. Dani Noy
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:26 am
Dani@MasterGMAT wrote:
diebeatsthegmat wrote:
avenus wrote:There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person
do yo have its explanation?
Hold on - is it 2x "two times x", or x^2 "x squared"?
If the answer is C, then I believe "x2" and "x3" are in fact "x squared" and "x cubed", in which case x itself will be limited to x=1. If x is greater than 1, for example, x=2, then:
we have 2 high level officials
each supervises 2^2=4 mid level officials - total of 2*4=8 mid level officials.
Each of the 8 mid levels supervises 2^3 = 8 low level officials - for a total of 8*8=64 low levels, which is already over 60 low levels in stat. (1).

Technically, stat. (1) seems to be sufficient on its own in this case, (limits x to 1) but the phrasing of the question apparently allows for low level officials to be supervised by more than one person. Thus, x=2 and we have two high levels, the two high levels could theoretically supervise the same four mid levels (since the question doesn't state that each high level supervises x^2 "different" mid levels), in which case x could equal more than 1 and still satisfy stat. (1). Thus, we need stat. (2) to clarify that each official oversees a different group, in which case any value of x greater than 1 will already push us over the 60 limit.
I didn't get the explanation for statement 2. Can you pls elaborate.

Thanks.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:55 pm
beat_gmat_09 wrote:
Dani@MasterGMAT wrote:
diebeatsthegmat wrote:
avenus wrote:There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person
do yo have its explanation?
Hold on - is it 2x "two times x", or x^2 "x squared"?
If the answer is C, then I believe "x2" and "x3" are in fact "x squared" and "x cubed", in which case x itself will be limited to x=1. If x is greater than 1, for example, x=2, then:
we have 2 high level officials
each supervises 2^2=4 mid level officials - total of 2*4=8 mid level officials.
Each of the 8 mid levels supervises 2^3 = 8 low level officials - for a total of 8*8=64 low levels, which is already over 60 low levels in stat. (1).

Technically, stat. (1) seems to be sufficient on its own in this case, (limits x to 1) but the phrasing of the question apparently allows for low level officials to be supervised by more than one person. Thus, x=2 and we have two high levels, the two high levels could theoretically supervise the same four mid levels (since the question doesn't state that each high level supervises x^2 "different" mid levels), in which case x could equal more than 1 and still satisfy stat. (1). Thus, we need stat. (2) to clarify that each official oversees a different group, in which case any value of x greater than 1 will already push us over the 60 limit.
I didn't get the explanation for statement 2. Can you pls elaborate.

Thanks.
welll the problem is that i dont know if it is x^2 and x^3 or 2x and 3x, thus i am stuck at this point
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:17 pm
it is x^2 and x^3.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
Thanked: 378 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:760

by Geva@EconomistGMAT » Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:40 am
I didn't get the explanation for statement 2. Can you pls elaborate.
Let's read the question stem again:
There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high level official supervises x^2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x^3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?

the phrasing here is misleading. Note that the question doesn't explicitly state that the officials supervised by each high level officials are a different set. Theoretically, the sentence "each high level official supervises x^2 mid level officials" still allows some mid level officials to be supervised by both high level officials. If the high levels are A and B, and If there are only 4 mid level officials (H, I, J, K), and all 4 are supervised by both high level officials, this would still be allowed by the question stem: A and B could both supervise the same H, I, J, K, and thus each still supervises 4 mid levels - just not exclusively. Without this exclusivity, we COULD have values of x greater than 1, and still keep the overall number of low level employees less than 60: as long as some employees are counted twice, once as supervised by official A, and once by official B.
This could've been avoided if the question stem read something like "Each high level official exclusively supervises x^2 mid-level officials". Without this crucial word, we need Stat. (2) to come and eliminate this possibility by stating that each employee can only be supervised by one official: so if x=2, then the two high level employees must indeed supervise two separate groups of 4 mid levels, who in turn really supervise 4 separate groups of 8 low levels, bringing the number of low levels to 8*8=64 - which is impossible, according to stat.(1).
Geva
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 2:16 pm

by francoimps » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:06 am
For a shorter explanation:

There are x high-level officials (where x is a positive integer). Each high-level official supervises x^2 mid-level officials, each of whom, in turn, supervises x^3 low-level officials. How many high-level officials are there?
(1) There are fewer than 60 low-level officials.
(2) No official is supervised by more than one person.

Solution:

Assuming that no official is supervised by more than one person:

# of HL officials = x (from the given)
# of ML officials = x(x^2) = x^3 (by the fundamental counting principle or, by conversion (x^2 ML per HL)(no. of HL) = total ML )
# of LL officials: = x^3(x^3) = x^6 (by the fundamental counting principle or, by conversion (x^3 LL per ML)(no. of ML) = total HL )


(1) We do not know whether one official can supervise more than 1 person. If at least 1 official can supervise more than 1 person, our equations cannot hold because the total number of HL, ML, or LL will be lower and we cannot determine this by with the current information given.

(2) The statement is useless by itself.

(1) and (2). Since no official is supervised by more than one person, we can use our equations, particularly, the one for the # of LL:
# of LL = x^6 < 60

Since x is an integer, the only x that can make the equation true is when x = 1.

Therefore, the answer is C.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply