# When Your High School Algebra is Wrong: How the GMAT Breaks Systems of Equations Rules

*by*, Mar 2, 2015

*If you have two equations, you can solve for two variables.*

This rule is a cornerstone of algebra. Its how we solve for values when were given a relationship between two unknowns:

*If I can buy 2 kumquats and 3 rutabagas for $16, and 3 kumquats and 1 rutabaga for $9, how much does 1 kumquat cost?*

We set up two equations:

[pmath]2k + 4r = 16[/pmath]

[pmath]3k + r = 9[/pmath]

Then we can use either substitution or elimination to solve. (Try it out yourself; answer* below).

On the GMAT, youll be using the 2 equations 2 variables rule to solve for a lot of word problems like the one above, especially in Problem Solving. Be careful, though! On the GMAT this rule doesnt*always*apply, especially in Data Sufficiency. Here are some sneaky exceptions to the rule

**2 equations arent always 2 equations**

On DS questions, the GMAT wants you to*assume*that if you have 2 equations, you can always solve for the values of 2 variables. Consider:

What is the value ofx?(1) [pmath]2x-y= 5x- 4[/pmath]

(2) [pmath]6x+y= 8 -y[/pmath]

At a first glance, we see that each statement has an equation with*x*and*y*in it. We assume that those arent sufficient on their own, but if we combine them, then 2 equations should allow us to solve for 2 variables. Right? Give it a trysee what values you get

If you actually try to solve, youll see that statement (1) simplifies to [pmath]3x+y= 4[/pmath]. And statements (2) simplifies to exactly the same thing! We didnt really have 2 equationswe actually had 2 versions of the*same*equation. The answer would be E, not C.

**2 variables arent always 2 variables**

Try this one:

What is the value ofm?(1)[pmath]m-2n= 6[/pmath]

(2) [pmath]3m-n= 9-(m+n)[/pmath]

Again, at a first glance it looks like each equation has 2 variables, so well need both statements to solve. What happens when you simplify statement (2), though? The *n*on each side will cancel, leaving us with a value for*m*. Thats sufficient!

We have to actually do the work to ensure that a) neither variable cancels out or b) we dont secretly have the same equation. We cant just jump to a conclusion without doing the work!

**The Combo**

If[pmath]p+ 3q= 6r[/pmath], what is the value ofp?(1) [pmath]2r-q= 5[/pmath]

(2)[pmath]r+ 2q= 20[/pmath]

Here, if we combine the two statements, we can solve and find that[pmath]q= 7[/pmath] and[pmath]r= 6[/pmath], and then we can easily solve for the value of*p*. So it seems like the answer should be C, right? But of course the GMAT is sneakier than that

Sometimes 2 equations will let us solve for the values of 2 variables, but*thats not what the question really asked*! First, rephrase the question:

If[pmath]p+ 3q= 6r[/pmath], what is the value of*p*?

[pmath]p= 6r-3q[/pmath] what is the value of [pmath]6r- 3q[/pmath]?

what is [pmath]3(2r-q)[/pmath]?

what is [pmath]2r-q[/pmath]?

If thats our question, then clearly statement (1) gives us a value for that expression. We didnt need the value of each variable individually, we just needed a value for the combo of [pmath]2r-q[/pmath].

**The Integer Constraint**

If I asked you to solve for*x*, and just gave you the equation [pmath]13x+ 5y= 90[/pmath], you wouldnt be able to do it. One equation will never let you solve for two variablesthats what we learned in high school. But see what happens when we have a word problem:

If xylophones cost $13 apiece and [I cant think of an instrument that starts with y. Lets just say zithers] zithers cost $5 apiece at the Discount Music Emporium. If Wolfgang purchased at least one xylophone and one zither, then how many xylophones did Wolfgang buy?

(1) He spent a total of $90 on xylophones and zithers.(2) He bought the same number of xylophones as zithers.

If we use both statements together, we get [pmath]13x+ 5z= 90[/pmath] and[pmath]x=z[/pmath]. Two equations, so we can solve for two variables. But look again at the statements individually!

The second statement doesnt help, because that same number could be anything. On the first statement, though, ask yourself: are there multiple combinations of $13 and $5 amounts that could add to $90?

Because the numbers of xylophones and zithers have to be*positive integers*, were just looking for combinations of multiples of 13 and multiples of 5. As it turns out, theres only one combination that adds up to $90: 13(5) + 5(5). Statement (1)just one single equation!was sufficient because the integer constraint restricted it to one possibility.

**The Quadratic**

Another way that the GMAT will try to mess with our expectations about 2 equations 2 variables is by giving us two equations that create a quadratic:

What is the value ofk?(1)[pmath]j+k= 9[/pmath]

(2)[pmath]jk= 20[/pmath]

If we combine these two equations, well get a quadratic:

[pmath]20/k+k= 9[/pmath]

[pmath]20 +k2-9k= 0[/pmath]

[pmath](k-5)(k- 4) = 0[/pmath]

We find that*k*could equal 4 or 5, but well never know which. Quadratics give us two potential values, but theyre insufficient to give us a single value for a variable (unless theres a constraint, or a perfect square). Here, the answer would be E.

**Check your assumptions!**

Remember, the GMAT likes to thwart your expectations! Dont assume that two equations will always be needed (or sufficient) to solve for two variables.

For more examples of these 2 equations 2 variables, try these problems. See if you can pinpoint which exception is being used in each:

OG 13/2015: DS #17, 23, 56, 59, 67, 68, 78, 114, 132, 156

*[pmath]k= 2[/pmath]

###### 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