D is the set of all the multiples of 3 between 20 and 100. E is the set of all the factors of 400. Set D and Set E have how many numbers in common?
(A)0
(B)1
(C)3
(D)5
(E)12
OA: A
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Manhattan Question Set # 12
This topic has expert replies
-
richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi richachampion,
This question has an interesting Number Property 'shortcut' built into it. If you know the 'rule of 3', then you know that the number 400 is NOT evenly divisible by 3 (since 4+0+0 = 4, which is not divisible by 3). Since 400 is not divisible by 3, NONE of its factors will be a multiple of 3. Thus, none of the numbers in Set D (which are all multiples of 3) are also in Set E.
Final Answer: A
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
This question has an interesting Number Property 'shortcut' built into it. If you know the 'rule of 3', then you know that the number 400 is NOT evenly divisible by 3 (since 4+0+0 = 4, which is not divisible by 3). Since 400 is not divisible by 3, NONE of its factors will be a multiple of 3. Thus, none of the numbers in Set D (which are all multiples of 3) are also in Set E.
Final Answer: A
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
-
richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
Fantastic I liked the way you solved it. you made my day today. I can understand now why you have 800. ((Kudos³)³)³[email protected] wrote:Hi richachampion,
This question has an interesting Number Property 'shortcut' built into it. If you know the 'rule of 3', then you know that the number 400 is NOT evenly divisible by 3 (since 4+0+0 = 4, which is not divisible by 3). Since 400 is not divisible by 3, NONE of its factors will be a multiple of 3. Thus, none of the numbers in Set D (which are all multiples of 3) are also in Set E.
Final Answer: A
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
-
Matt@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2630
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:32 pm
- Location: East Bay all the way
- Thanked: 625 times
- Followed by:119 members
- GMAT Score:780
We might want to get at a more general solution here.
Start by factoring 400 into primes:
400 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 * 5
Now consider the set of multiples of 3 between 20 and 100, which would be:
3*7, 3*8, ..., 3*33
Given any sets of numbers, you'd want to look for numbers in the second set whose prime factorization is ENTIRELY contained in the prime factorization of the first number (here, 400).
Since 400 doesn't contain a 3, we know right away that none of 3*7, 3*8, ..., 3*33 will appear in the prime factorization of 400. But if the question were a bit more complex, we'd need an approach like this to solve it reasonably. (And with this one, it certainly makes the inspiration for the solution clearer!)
Start by factoring 400 into primes:
400 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 * 5
Now consider the set of multiples of 3 between 20 and 100, which would be:
3*7, 3*8, ..., 3*33
Given any sets of numbers, you'd want to look for numbers in the second set whose prime factorization is ENTIRELY contained in the prime factorization of the first number (here, 400).
Since 400 doesn't contain a 3, we know right away that none of 3*7, 3*8, ..., 3*33 will appear in the prime factorization of 400. But if the question were a bit more complex, we'd need an approach like this to solve it reasonably. (And with this one, it certainly makes the inspiration for the solution clearer!)
