BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Multiple of 3

Expert replies
by svishal1123 » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:23 pm
Hello, Here's a question from Princeton Review:

If P is a set of integers and 3 is in P, is every positive multiple of 3 in p?

1. For any integer in P, the sum of 3 and that integer is also in P.

2. For ant integer in P, that integer minus 3 is also in P.

The answer is A.
My answer was E based on the following argument.

3 is in P. Taking first statement into consideration, lets take a number, say x and assume that it is in P. So we will have x+3 also in P. We dont have any information whether x or x+3 is a multiple of 3. If x = 6 then both ARE multiples, however if x = 5, both will not be. We know that a number and its sum with 3 are in the set but we have no clue, what are the other numbers in the set.

Taking second statement into consideration, it will work absolutely the same way as first.

Can somebody help me understand the reason behind the correct answer or is my answer correct?

As far as SC is concerned is there any flaw in my question above - Can somebody help me understand the reason... :lol: I like to practice SC this way.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by cramya » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:33 pm
Stmt I

For 3 to be in P 0 must have been in P since sum of 3 and intger 0 makes 3 to be in P.

If 3 is in p 3+3 is in P etc....

SUFF

Stmt II

For ant integer in P, that integer minus 3 is also in P.


For 3 to be in P 6 must have been in P. The other positive multiples may or may not be in P

INSUFF

Hence I think the oa is what it is.
Join the discussion

by svishal1123 » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:50 pm
I am not really sure I understand that. For 0 to be in P, the statement has to be reflexive. So if n is in P, there is integer in P which is n-3.

Lets take an example to understand this.
# Lets take a number which is in P, say 11 so 14 is also in P.
# If 11-3=8, is not in P, it does not contradict the question statement or the first statement. Hence 11 can be in P without 8.

This above was only for statement 1.
Join the discussion

by svishal1123 » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:58 pm
On thinking further I understood how the answer is.

3 is in P (from the question) so from statement 1, 6 should also be in P, hence 9 should also be in P. There could be other numbers as well, but 3,6,9... are there for sure. hence all the POSITIVE multiples are there

From statement 2 since 3 is already there, 0 is there, hence -3 is there, -6 is there. and so on... but these are not positive multiples. There could be other numbers, but 0,-3,-6 are there for sure, but these are not positive. We dont whether the positive multiples are there from this statement alone.
Hence the answer.
Join the discussion