# Data Sufficiency in GMAT Prep: Maria's Books

*by*, Jan 22, 2013

Last week, we discussed the overall process for Data Sufficiency. This week, were going to test out the process using a GMATPrep question and take a look at a couple of *very* common DS traps.

Set your timer for 2 minutes. and GO!

* A bookstore that sells used books sells each of its paperback books for a certain price and each of its hardcover books for a certain price. If Joe, Maria, and Paul all bought books in this store, how much did Maria pay for 1 paperback book and 1 hardcover book?(1) Joe bought 2 paperback books and 3 hardcover books for $12.50.

(2) Paul bought 4 paperback books and 6 hardcover books for $25.00.

Note that I havent listed the answer choices for you. Because DS answers are always the same, we should memorize them. If you dont have them memorized yet, look back at the How DS Works article linked in the first paragraph.

All right, lets tackle this problem.

Step 1: Read the Question Stem

The first sentence tells us that each paperback book sells for the same price and each hardcover book also sells for the same price (but possibly a different price than the paperback books).

The question asks how much Maria paid for 1 of each type of book. Is this a value or a yes/no question?

Theyre asking for a specific amount; this is a value question. Weve also got lots of words; were going to have to translate.

Step 2: Glance *Briefly* at Both Statements

What have we got in general? More words. Weve just confirmed that translation is our first step.

Step 3: Examine / Rephrase the Question Stem

To translate, were going to need some variables. Lets set *p* for the price of the paperback book and *h* for the price of the hardcover book.

We can translate the question in this way:

*p* + *h* = ?

Note that we dont necessarily have to be able to find *p* and *h* individually. If we can find a value for the combination *p* + *h*, then thatll be good enough.

Step 4: Tackle the Statements

Statement 1 doesnt seem horrible, so start with it. Write down the answer grid (AD, and then underneath, BCE).

(1) Joe bought 2 paperback books and 3 hardcover books for $12.50.

Translate using the set variables:

J: 2*p* + 3*h* = 12.5

Okay. Weve got a formula with our two desired variables. Is there any way to manipulate that formula to get *p* + *h* on one side and a value on the other?

Nope. Theres one extra *h* hanging around. If it had said something like 2*p* + 2*h* = 12.5, where the coefficients (the numbers before the variables) were the same, then we could get a value for *p* + *h*. But theres no way to get the two different coefficients to be the same *and* have only a numerical value on the other side of the equation.

Statement 1 is not sufficient. Cross off the top row (answers A and D) and move to statement 2.

(2) Paul bought 4 paperback books and 6 hardcover books for $25.00.

Oh, I can see where this is going. Im going to get a formula for Paul and, look, it also includes the *p* and *h* variables. By itself, that wont be enough, but if I combine it with statement 1, then Ill be able to solve. The answer must be C.

Careful! Thats wrong; C is a trap answer. Were always trying to save time on DS by not calculating things or stopping calculations before were done but dont cut things down *too* much. Translate this formula.

P: 4*p* + 6*h* = 25

(Note: because Pauls name starts with P and Ive also chosen *p* to represent the price of a paperback, Id probably do something like put a circle around P and go back up to do the same with J so that I dont confuse anything.)

Once again, by itself, this wont work (I cant find the variables individually and theres no way to get the two coefficients to be the same, so I cant solve for the combination *p* + *h*). Cross off answer B.

Now, look at those two equations together. Notice anything?

They look strangely similar, dont they? Here they are side by side:

2*p* + 3*h* = 12.5

4*p* + 6*h* = 25

Lets see yep, if we multiply each term in the first equation by 2, well get the second equation.

In other words, these two equations are identical theyre the same equation! In order to solve for these two variables, we would need two *different* equations (or an equation in which the coefficients before *p* and *h* were the same).

Using the two statements together still doesnt allow us to figure out a value for *p* + *h*. Cross off answer C.

**The correct answer is E.**

**Key Takeaways for Algebra Word Problems**

(1) Translate. Get everything on paper in math form so that you can look at it. If you do too much in your head, youll be much more likely to make a mistake with the math. (Looking for more on translation? Read this introduction to translation or dive into the Algebraic Translations chapter of our Word Problems book.)

(2) Watch out for the stopping too early trap: this trap involves thinking that we know whether something is sufficient even though we havent done enough work yet. As a general rule, if something requires any kind of translation or manipulation at all, dont do that in your head. Write it down. If you find, through review, that you often make the mistake of stopping too early, then vow to go one step further every single time from now on. With enough practice, youll then learn where you really can stop and where you cant.

(3) Watch out for the combo trap: this trap involves thinking that we need to be able to find each individual variable when its actually sufficient to find a *combination* of the variables (such as *p* + *h*). This particular trap didnt show up on the above problem, but it shows up on many others; keep an eye out for it!

* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.

###### Recent Articles

###### Archive

- 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