-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Manhattan GMAT Challenge Problem of the Week - 28 Jan 10
Welcome back to this week's Challenge Problem! As always, the problem and solution below were written by one of our fantastic instructors. Each challenge problem represents a 700+ level question. If you are up for the challenge, however, set your timer for 2 minutes and go!
Question
The consumer price index in Zeropia in 2009 relative to the year 2000 was 1.75, meaning that for every Zeropian dollar spent on consumer goods in 2000, $1.75 on average had to be spent in 2009. In Zeropian dollars, what was the increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes from 2000 to 2009, if these shoes price increased precisely according to the consumer price index?(1) The price of Brand Z running shoes was $91 in 2009.
(2) The ratio of the dollar increase in the price of Brand Z running shoes to the price of the shoes in 2009 was 3:7.
(A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
(B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
(C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
(D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
(E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed.
Solution
The consumer price index gives us a ratio between prices in 2000 and prices in 2009. We are told that "for every Zeropian dollar spent on consumer goods in 2000, $1.75 on average had to be spent in 2009." In other words, if something cost x dollars in 2000, it cost 1.75x dollars in 2009 (as long as the price increased exactly according to the index, which is just an average). In dollar terms, the increase in price would then be 1.75x x = 0.75x dollars.
We are asked for this dollar price increase for Brand Z running shoes. Representing the price of these shoes in 2000 as x, as we already have, we can rephrase the question as "What is 0.75x?" We can further rephrase this question to "What is x?"
(1) SUFFICIENT. We are told that the price of the shoes in 2009 is $91. We have represented the 2009 price as 1.75x dollars, staying consistent with our variable naming throughout the problem (never change variable designations midstream unless youre starting over completely). So we can write an equation:
1.75x = 91
We know we can solve for x, so we can answer the question. (Incidentally, if we had to solve for this x on a Problem-Solving problem, one fast way would be to convert 1.75 to a fraction. 1.75 = 7/4, so we can quickly write that x = (91)(4/7). Since 91/7 = 13, we get x = (13)(4) = 52.)
(2) INSUFFICIENT. We are told that the price increase in dollar terms, divided by the price of the shoes in 2009, is 3/7. However, this information is already completely implied by the stem. If the index is 1.75, then any goods price increase was 75%, or 75 cents for every 2000 dollar. Since the 2009 price is $1.75 for every 2000 dollar, the ratio of the price increase ($0.75) to the 2009 price ($1.75) will always be 0.75/1.75, or 3/7. This holds true no matter what the original 2000 price is, so we cannot determine x through this bit of redundant information.
The correct answer is (A) Statement 1 by itself is sufficient to answer the question, but Statement 2 is not sufficient.
To view the current Challenge Problem, simply visit the Challenge Problem page on Manhattan GMAT's website.
Recent Articles
Archive
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009