Ratios

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:17 pm
Thanked: 5 times

Ratios

by moneyman » Tue May 06, 2008 4:49 am
Each employee of company Z is an employee of Division X or Division Y. If each division has some part-time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees greater for Division X than for Company Z??

(1) The ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees is less for Division Y than for Company Z.

(2)More than half of the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X and more than half of the part-time employees of company Z are employees of Division Y.


Ans D
Maxx

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

Re: Ratios

by lunarpower » Thu May 08, 2008 1:00 am
moneyman wrote:Each employee of company Z is an employee of Division X or Division Y. If each division has some part-time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees greater for Division X than for Company Z??

(1) The ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees is less for Division Y than for Company Z.

(2)More than half of the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X and more than half of the part-time employees of company Z are employees of Division Y.


Ans D
why two question marks? is it to give the problem an extra sense of urgency? just wondering.

here's a fact that you should know. i can furnish a proof if you reallyreallyreally want me to, but it should be clear:
if a data set can be split into two groups, both of which have at least the ratio a:b for some 2 characteristics, then the entire data set has at least the ratio a:b for those 2 characteristics.
in other words, if the ratio of FT to PT employees is at least, say, 3:1 in both divisions, then the overall ratio of FT to PT employees must also be 3:1.

here's a corollary:
if a data set can be split into two groups, and one of the groups has a ratio HIGHER than the overall ratio for some 2 characteristics, then the other group has a ratio LOWER than the overall ratio for those 2 characteristics - and vice versa.
this follows logically from the above statement, because it violates the first result (and common sense) if both divisions' ratios are somehow higher (or both lower) than the overall ratio.

--

statement (1)
this statement must be true, because if div. y has a lower ratio, then div. x must have a higher ratio to balance things out (see the corollary above).

so, sufficient.

if you want actual inequalities to prove this, i would be glad to provide them, but you should be able to conceptualize this result so that you have a fighting chance of completing the problem within the allotted time.

--

statement (2)
because FT and PT are mutually exclusive, this statement implies that div. x has more FT employees, but fewer PT employees, than does div. y.

therefore, the ratios are (higher / lower) for div. x and (lower / higher) for div. y, so the overall ratio must be higher for div. x.

sufficient

answer = d
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:17 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by moneyman » Thu May 08, 2008 4:48 am
Wonderful explanation Ron..Oh and the two question marks is just a habit though it does conatin some frustruation for not having understood the problem :)
Maxx

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:26 pm

by gmattakers » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:45 pm
Great explanation, lunarpower

Legendary Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanked: 331 times
Followed by:11 members

by cramya » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:49 pm
As usual Ron's post is awesome!!

Hey,
If u want the proof refer to
https://www.beatthegmat.com/questions-fr ... html#90653

I did it by using the inequalities given.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:11 am

by its time » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:45 am
Hi Ron,
Thanxs a great explanation and really helps..i m still not very clear with the second part though...can u kindly explain a little more..
when u say that ''the ratios are (higher / lower) for div. x and (lower / higher) for div. y''..how does is it say that ratio of FT/PT for x >FT/PT for z???

Thanx..

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:56 pm
Location: Indianapolis
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:760

by MFaulkner » Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:10 pm
I agree, great explanation!

this question had me stumped before this

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:05 am

by maaz_gmat » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:33 pm
Still couldn't crack this.. Ron, Not sure when we are comparing the ratios between x and Y as explained by you, how that relates to the question asked. Ratio of FT to PT greater for Division X than for company Z.

If it were Ratio of FT to PT greater for Div X than for Div Y, it seemed to be a solution. Please help in the understanding of the same.

Thanks.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by abhicoolmax » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:42 pm
lunarpower wrote:
moneyman wrote:Each employee of company Z is an employee of Division X or Division Y. If each division has some part-time employees, is the ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees greater for Division X than for Company Z??

(1) The ratio of the number of full-time employees to the number of part time employees is less for Division Y than for Company Z.

(2)More than half of the full-time employees of Company Z are employees of Division X and more than half of the part-time employees of company Z are employees of Division Y.


Ans D
why two question marks? is it to give the problem an extra sense of urgency? just wondering.

here's a fact that you should know. i can furnish a proof if you reallyreallyreally want me to, but it should be clear:
if a data set can be split into two groups, both of which have at least the ratio a:b for some 2 characteristics, then the entire data set has at least the ratio a:b for those 2 characteristics.
in other words, if the ratio of FT to PT employees is at least, say, 3:1 in both divisions, then the overall ratio of FT to PT employees must also be 3:1.

here's a corollary:
if a data set can be split into two groups, and one of the groups has a ratio HIGHER than the overall ratio for some 2 characteristics, then the other group has a ratio LOWER than the overall ratio for those 2 characteristics - and vice versa.
this follows logically from the above statement, because it violates the first result (and common sense) if both divisions' ratios are somehow higher (or both lower) than the overall ratio.

--

statement (1)
this statement must be true, because if div. y has a lower ratio, then div. x must have a higher ratio to balance things out (see the corollary above).

so, sufficient.

if you want actual inequalities to prove this, i would be glad to provide them, but you should be able to conceptualize this result so that you have a fighting chance of completing the problem within the allotted time.

--

statement (2)
because FT and PT are mutually exclusive, this statement implies that div. x has more FT employees, but fewer PT employees, than does div. y.

therefore, the ratios are (higher / lower) for div. x and (lower / higher) for div. y, so the overall ratio must be higher for div. x.

sufficient

answer = d
Great abstraction Ron. Loved your choices of words.

In other words, I think Ron's words can also be translated as (Ron please correct me if I wrong? I used the following in my GMATPrep - I was looking for alternate solution!):
1. If x1/y1 > (x1+x2)/(y1+y2) , then x1/y1 > x2/y2 (For all +ve values of x1,x2,y1,y2)
- this what we need to prove (Question Stem)
2. If (x1+x2)/(y1+y2) > x2/y2 , then x1/y1 > x2/y2 (For all +ve values of x1,x2,y1,y2)
- this is what Stmt-1 says
3. If x1>x2, y2>y1 Then x1/y1 > x2/y2 (For all +ve values of x1,x2,y1,y2)
- this is what Stmt-2 says

NOTE: the choice of x1,x2,y1,y2 has nothing to do with the original question. This is just an abstraction or rather generalization.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:30 am
Hi Ron,
I am unable to digest how the following can be true..
therefore, the ratios are (higher / lower) for div. x and (lower / higher) for div. y, so the overall ratio must be higher for div. x.
Please help..
Regards,
Sach

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 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:16 am
sachindia wrote:Hi Ron,
I am unable to digest how the following can be true..
therefore, the ratios are (higher / lower) for div. x and (lower / higher) for div. y, so the overall ratio must be higher for div. x.
Please help..
hi,
please explain exactly what you don't understand. if you just say "i can't digest it", then the best i can do is simply to repeat the concept. that won't help anybody.

in different terms --
if you have a/b and c/d, where a > c and b < d, then a/b is definitely bigger than c/d.
maybe that will help
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:03 am
Hi Ron,
I was actually unable to understand how 'overall' ratio will be higher for but after thinking about this Question on the lines of weighted average concept, could understand that ratio has to be higher for X when compared to the same of the company Z.
Regards,
Sach