MGMAT DS

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

MGMAT DS

by ankurmit » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:28 am
Last year, the five employees of Company X took an average of 16 vacation days each. What was the average number of vacation days taken by the same employees this year?

(1) Three employees had a 50% increase in their number of vacation days, and two employees had a 50% decrease.

(2) Three employees had 10 more vacation days each, and two employees had 5 fewer vacation days each.

I am not able to solve 2nd one....
--------
Ankur mittal
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:42 am
ankurmit wrote:Last year, the five employees of Company X took an average of 16 vacation days each. What was the average number of vacation days taken by the same employees this year?

(1) Three employees had a 50% increase in their number of vacation days, and two employees had a 50% decrease.

(2) Three employees had 10 more vacation days each, and two employees had 5 fewer vacation days each.

I am not able to solve 2nd one....
St 2 :

from Stem ( X1 +X2 +X3 +X4 + X5 )/ 5 = 16


( X1 +X2 +X3 +X4 + X5 ) = 80

Now as per st 2: Avg : (X1 +X2 +X3 + 30 + X4 + X5 -20)/5

( X1 +X2 +X3 +X4 + X5 +10)/5
( 80+10)/5
18
St 2 is sufficient.

St 1 is not sufficient as we are not sure of abosulte values.


Pick B

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:20 am
Gmatmachoman's solution is correct, although it's an interesting approach -- he used a very algebraic approach for the second statement, but didn't think about the first in terms of specific numbers. my approach is actually the exact opposite: i like to prove the insufficiency of the first statement by using specific numbers, but then i like to reason out the sufficiency of the second statement without bothering with the computation.

first, a very important realization:
if we can see what happens to the SUM of the five numbers, then that's also sufficient (because the sum is just 5 times the desired average).
this is a very common theme, especially on data sufficiency -- if the problem really wants you to work with the sum, then they'll ask you about the average, and vice versa.

statement 1:

as gmatmachoman stated above (in slightly different words), we need to have the actual numerical values here, since we want the NUMBER of vacation days in order to compute the average. the problem is that 50% of a larger number is, well, larger than 50% of a smaller number.

so, let's say that the employees took 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 vacation days.
compare two situations:
1) the lowest three (14, 15, 16) receive 50% increases, while the top two (17 and 18) receive 50% decreases.
2) the highest three (18, 17, 16) receive 50% increases, while the bottom two (15 and 14) receive 50% decreases.
we don't need to compute the actual figures in this case, because we can see that, in situation #1, the increases are smaller and the decreases are larger than in situation #2. therefore, situation #1 will have a different impact on the overall sum than will situation #2. so, insufficient.

statement 2:

you can just reason this out as follows:
* we have the current SUM
* this SUM goes up by 3(10) - 2(5) = 20 days
* so, we have the new SUM
* so, sufficient.
no need to deal with actual numbers here at all.

answer = (b)
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron