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
knewton DS
This topic has expert replies
- bblast
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
- Thanked: 118 times
- Followed by:33 members
- GMAT Score:710
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_
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_
- kmittal82
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:44 am
- Location: London
- Thanked: 70 times
- Followed by:3 members
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.
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.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.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
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
- prateek_guy2004
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:39 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 41 times
- Followed by:6 members
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
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
https://www.beatthegmat.com/motivation-t90253.html
- bblast
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
- Thanked: 118 times
- Followed by:33 members
- GMAT Score:710
saketk wrote:Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.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
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_
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_
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
Don't know but lets move on .. this is a bad question stem ..lolbblast wrote:saketk wrote:Hi, Although the answer is E. I think the second statement is incorrect.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
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.