# The GMAT Official Guide 2018 Edition - Part 2

*by*, Jun 27, 2017

The new Official Guide (OG) books have landed and Ive got the scoop for you! (If youd like, you can start with the first installment of this article series.) Todays post focuses on Data Sufficiency.

## Whats new in Data Sufficiency for the 2018 editions?

There are 26 new Data Sufficiency (DS) problems (and 26 were dropped).

8 new algebra questions were added and only 2 were dropped, but I don't think that signals anything of major importance. The numbers here are ultimately smalland algebra has always been common on the test. In general, there werent any major differences in terms of the content mix showing up in the new vs. dropped questions.

I did notice that quite a few of the new DS problems can be solved via Testing Cases (see #273, #276 through #278, #292, #293, and #334!). If you dont already feel comfortable Testing Cases, start practicing.

Also, a couple of hard ones really require us to delve into math-logic to solvemore on these below.

Finally, I just have to say that I really like #326. Its tricky but in a legitimate way: Think the full scenario through! (Im not going to tell you right now how its trickyI dont want to give it away. Try it on your own first.)

Lets talk about the two new math-logic problems, #339 and #382. Try them, then come on back here.

## The Logic Games (#339 and #382)

#339 makes us marry information from a table with the problem itselfI think just to see whether were really paying close attention. So make sure you write this all down carefully.

[pmath]R[/pmath] = $1 per

[pmath]D[/pmath] = $0.5 per

Now, heres where the logic comes in. The roses cost more. Keep that in the back of your mind.

Kim and Sue bought the same total number of flowers (and they each bought both [pmath]R[/pmath] and [pmath]D[/pmath]). The question asks whether Kim spent more.

Look at the prices. If Kim bought more [pmath]R[/pmath] than Sue did, then Kim will have spent more money. If they bought equal numbers, then the spend will be the same. And if Kim had fewer [pmath]R[/pmath], then she will have spent less.

That knowledge allows you to rephrase this question: Did Kim buy more roses than Sue? If you can get to that question, the problem really opens up. Statement (2) obviously works. And you can test a couple of quick cases to prove that Statement (1) does not.

#382 covers coordinate plane geometry. Fun. (/sarcasm) They ask for the slope of line *l*, so lets just start with this: What are the possible *kinds* of slopes that a line can have?

It can be positivemeaning its tilting up from left to right. Or negative, if its tilting down. It can also equal 0, if the line is totally horizontal. Or it can be undefinedthats for perfectly vertical lines.

Now, heres the trap. They want to know the actual slope, not just the type of slope. So it seems like we need to know really specific information to be able to answer. And neither statement appears to provide any real information.

Its true that statement (2) is not sufficient by itselfbut don't be so quick to dismiss statement (1). The [pmath]x[/pmath]-intercept of a line is where that line crosses the [pmath]x[/pmath]-axisand that always happens where [pmath]y = 0[/pmath], so that point can be written [pmath](x,0)[/pmath]. And the [pmath]y[/pmath]-intercept is where the line crosses the [pmath]y[/pmath]-axis and can be written [pmath](0,y)[/pmath].

Statement (1) says that [pmath]x[/pmath] is twice as big as [pmath]y[/pmath], so you can do a couple of things here.

First, neither [pmath]x[/pmath] nor [pmath]y[/pmath] can be 0, because that would mean the point [pmath](0,0)[/pmath] is on the line and the question stem said that the line does not pass through the originwhich is [pmath](0,0)[/pmath].

Next, [pmath]x[/pmath] and [pmath]y[/pmath] have to have the same sign. If [pmath]y = 1[/pmath], then [pmath]x = 2[/pmath]. But if [pmath]y = -1[/pmath], then [pmath]x =-2[/pmath]. What would the slopes be if those were the values? Sketch out a number line, add the points, and use rise over run to find the slope.

For [pmath](2,0)[/pmath] and [pmath](0,1)[/pmath], the slope is [pmath]-1/2[/pmath]. And for [pmath](-2,0)[/pmath] and [pmath](0,-1)[/pmath], the slope is hey, its [pmath]-1/2[/pmath] again! (Note: The OG solution here says that the slope is [pmath]-2[/pmath]; thats a typo.)

Is it just a coincidence that we got the same slope? Would it be different if we tried different numbers?

Think the logic through. Slope is always rise over run. The rise is the difference between the two [pmath]y[/pmath] values and the run is always the difference between the two [pmath]x[/pmath] values. In other words, rise over run really means (difference in [pmath]y[/pmath]) / (difference in [pmath]x[/pmath]).

The two points were using are [pmath](x,0)[/pmath] and [pmath](0,y)[/pmath] so the difference for each is going to be calculated from 0 to whatever the [pmath]x[/pmath] or [pmath]y[/pmath] value is.

Since [pmath]x[/pmath] is always twice as big as [pmath]y[/pmath], [pmath]x[/pmath] is always going to be twice as far from 0 as [pmath]y[/pmath]. In other words, not only is [pmath]x[/pmath] twice as big as [pmath]y[/pmath], but the difference in the two [pmath]x[/pmath] values will always be twice as big as the difference in the two [pmath]y[/pmath] values. And that means we have a consistent ratio going on: that ratio is always going to be 1/2. And since the x value is always further from 0 than is the y value (sketch out some examples if youre not sure), the line is always going to angle downwardsthat is, the slope will always be negative. Put those two pieces of information together: The slope will always be [pmath]-1/2[/pmath]. Statement (1) is actually sufficient.

Thats a pretty hard question, so if youre thinking, Whaaa ? right now, thats okay. That just means that your task is to figure out how to recognize that this is just too hard so that you can guess quickly on something like this on the real test.

If you find yourself thinking anything along the lines of, Well, this statement doesnt seem like it could be enough because it seems like they havent told me much of anything but I also dont really understand the significance of saying that the [pmath]x[/pmath]-intercept is twice the [pmath]y[/pmath]-intercept what does that really mean??then thats a great signal to back away from the problem and move on. :)

## And more traps (#326)

Are you ready to hear about #326? The trap is in statement (1). I think a lot of people are going to dismiss this one as not sufficient without laying out the workbut it actually is sufficient! The key is in the last part of the statement: and received enough money from the city to cover this cost. Well, if that cost is over the $15k minimum that the library is guaranteed then the library must have gotten the bonus last year.

If they averaged 50 new books a month, thats [pmath](50)(12) = 600[/pmath] new books for the year. The average book cost was $28, so thats [pmath](600)(28) = $16,800[/pmath]. (Note: use fast math principles to calculate: [pmath](600)(30) = 18,000[/pmath]. Then subtract [pmath](600)(2)[/pmath]because 600 was supposed to be multiplied by only 28, not 30. [pmath]18,000-1,200 = 16,800[/pmath].) (Note #2: You dont actually have to find that exact number. Its enough to know whether the number is over $15k. How would you guesstimate that?)

Anyway, it is over the $15k minimum, so the library did get the bonus last year. Sufficient!

Are you mathed-out now? Then lets move on to Verbaljoin me next time for a run-down of the verbal sections of the new OG.

###### 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