Huh? :roll:

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:00 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Huh? :roll:

by smclean23 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:22 pm
A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent of the original cost. What was the original cost of the bracelet?
(1) After reducing this asking price by 10 percent, the jewelry dealer sold the bracelet at a profit of $403.
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.

Answer is A.....I understand (1), but if he sold the bracelet for $1953, which is a 40% profit to find the original cost...wouldn't 1.4x=1953 be sufficient?
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

Re: Huh? :roll:

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:24 pm
smclean23 wrote:A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent of the original cost. What was the original cost of the bracelet?
(1) After reducing this asking price by 10 percent, the jewelry dealer sold the bracelet at a profit of $403.
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.

Answer is A.....I understand (1), but if he sold the bracelet for $1953, which is a 40% profit to find the original cost...wouldn't 1.4x=1953 be sufficient?
You have to read the stem very carefully:
A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would ...
If you decide that (2) is sufficient alone, you're assuming that the final selling price is the same as the initial selling price. Since we're not explicitly told that the two prices are the same, we shouldn't assume that they are.

Just curious, what's the source of this question?
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:50 pm
such a easy question but i guess many would assumed what Stuart said..
Anyway i got it wrong too. dint take these 2 words "initially offered" very seriously.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:19 am
Like Stuart, I'm also curious about the source of the question.

These kinds of traps aren't what the GMAT is about.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:00 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Huh? :roll:

by smclean23 » Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:23 am
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
smclean23 wrote:A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent of the original cost. What was the original cost of the bracelet?
(1) After reducing this asking price by 10 percent, the jewelry dealer sold the bracelet at a profit of $403.
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.

Answer is A.....I understand (1), but if he sold the bracelet for $1953, which is a 40% profit to find the original cost...wouldn't 1.4x=1953 be sufficient?
You have to read the stem very carefully:
A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would ...
If you decide that (2) is sufficient alone, you're assuming that the final selling price is the same as the initial selling price. Since we're not explicitly told that the two prices are the same, we shouldn't assume that they are.

Just curious, what's the source of this question?

I am not sure. This came from the "Resources" Section. I forgot the exact name or title, but something along the lines of "1000 DS Problems"..