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

Redeem

knewton DS

Expert replies
by bblast » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:20 am
An item's sale price was x percent of its original price by the end of the first week of the sale. By the end of the second week, the sale price was further reduced to y percent of its original price.

What was the original price of the item?

x = 20
y - x = 15

E
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by kmittal82 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:27 am
Let original price = a

End of first week, items price = (x/100) * a
End of second week, items price = (y/100) * a

(1) Clearly Not sufficient

(2) Again, not sufficient as we have 3 unknowns

Combine (1) and (2)

y = 35, which again does not give the value of a itself.
Join the discussion

by saketk » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:48 am
bblast wrote:An item's sale price was x percent of its original price by the end of the first week of the sale. By the end of the second week, the sale price was further reduced to y percent of its original price.

What was the original price of the item?

x = 20
y - x = 15

E
Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.
After reading the question statement can't we say that the value of Y is less than X?

In the 2nd week the price was further reduced to Y% of the actual price (P) . Say, X=20%
Sale price in 1st week= 0.2p
Sale price in the 2nd week has to be less that the 1st week price.
Hence value of Y should be less than X. Or, Am I missing something.. is it something like this for the 2nd week -- y% of X% of P.

Just a thought
Join the discussion

by prateek_guy2004 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:20 pm
I did a similar problem in prob solving.....In this yes statement 1 and 2 are not sufficient to get the original value..

Thought the discounted percentage can be concluded.....

IMOE
Don't look for the incorrect things that you have done rather look for remedies....

https://www.beatthegmat.com/motivation-t90253.html
Join the discussion

by bblast » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:22 pm
saketk wrote:
bblast wrote:An item's sale price was x percent of its original price by the end of the first week of the sale. By the end of the second week, the sale price was further reduced to y percent of its original price.

What was the original price of the item?

x = 20
y - x = 15

E
Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.
After reading the question statement can't we say that the value of Y is less than X?

In the 2nd week the price was further reduced to Y% of the actual price (P) . Say, X=20%
Sale price in 1st week= 0.2p
Sale price in the 2nd week has to be less that the 1st week price.
Hence value of Y should be less than X. Or, Am I missing something.. is it something like this for the 2nd week -- y% of X% of P.

Just a thought

This is exactly why I posted this question. But I am sure we are missing something.
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Join the discussion

by navami » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:52 pm
Got to be E.


no information provided on the real price. We can just come out with % value. not the real value.
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Join the discussion

by czarczar » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:06 pm
Though answer should be E but a bad question stem.
Join the discussion

by force5 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:28 pm
+1 for E.
Join the discussion

by saketk » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:50 am
bblast wrote:
saketk wrote:
bblast wrote:An item's sale price was x percent of its original price by the end of the first week of the sale. By the end of the second week, the sale price was further reduced to y percent of its original price.

What was the original price of the item?

x = 20
y - x = 15

E
Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.
After reading the question statement can't we say that the value of Y is less than X?

In the 2nd week the price was further reduced to Y% of the actual price (P) . Say, X=20%
Sale price in 1st week= 0.2p
Sale price in the 2nd week has to be less that the 1st week price.
Hence value of Y should be less than X. Or, Am I missing something.. is it something like this for the 2nd week -- y% of X% of P.

Just a thought

This is exactly why I posted this question. But I am sure we are missing something.
Don't know but lets move on :) .. this is a bad question stem ..lol
Join the discussion