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
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

OG16 - DS 121

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:05 am
For any positive integer x, the 2-height of x is defined to be the greatest non-negative integer n such that 2^n is a factor of x. If k and m are positive integers, is the 2-height of k greater than the 2-height of m?

1) k>m
2) k/m is an even integer
We can think of the 2-height of x is being the greatest n when x/(2^n) = integer. So another way to think of this is that the 2-height of x is the number of 2's that x contains in its prime factorization. For example, the 2-height of 16 would simply be 4, as 16 = 2^4. The 2 height of 12 would be 2 as 12 = 2^2*3.

Statement 1: Pick some numbers. Case 1: k = 6 and m = 4.
The 2-height of k is 1 as 6 = 2 * 3
The 2-height of m is 2 as 4 = 2^2.
We get a NO, the 2-height of k is not greater than the 2-height of m

Case 2: k = 8
m = 4
The 2-height of k is 3 as 8 = 2^3
The 2-height of m is 2 as 4= 2^2
We get a YES, the 2-height of k is greater than the 2-height of m.

Because we can get a YES and a NO, statement 1 is not sufficient.

Statement 2:
If k/m is an even integer, then we can reuse k = 8 and m = 4, as 8/4 = 2. So we know we can get a YES.
Or try k = 32 and m = 8.
2-height of k is 5, as 32 = 2^5
2-height of m is 3, as 8 = 2^3
Another YES

You'll see quickly that no matter what you pick, you'll get a YES. So statement 2 is sufficient and the answer is B

(In essence, we're trying to determine which number has more 2's. If k/m is EVEN, we can say that k/m = 2*integer. Or k = m*2*integer.
No matter what you pick for m, you're multiplying that number by 2, so k will always contain more 2's.)
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion

by 800_or_bust » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:24 am
amina.shaikh309 wrote:Image
(1) Not sufficient. Consider k = 9, m = 8. Then the 2-height of k is 0 and the 2-height of m is 3. But if k = 16, m = 8, the 2-height of k is 4 and 2-height of m is 3. Since the 2-height of k can be greater or less than the 2-height of m, such that k > m, this is insufficient.

(2) Sufficient. Since k and m are both positive integers, this implies k = 2x*m, where x is a positive integer. Thus, it must be the case that k has at least one more factor of 2 than does m. Hence, the 2-height of k must be greater than the 2-height of m.
800 or bust!
Join the discussion