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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Quant

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:51 am
by pradeepss » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:21 pm
A natural number is divided into two positive unequal parts such that the ratio of the original number to the larger (divided) part is equal to the ratio of the larger part to the smaller part. What is the value of this ratio?

1. (51/2 − 1)

2. (51/2 + 1) / 2

3. (51/2 + 1) / 4

4. (51/2 + 1) / (51/2 − 1)

5. (51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1)
Target 700 and HAAS
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Problem Solving |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:04 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 36 times

Re: Quant

by Morgoth » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:58 pm
pradeepss wrote:A natural number is divided into two positive unequal parts such that the ratio of the original number to the larger (divided) part is equal to the ratio of the larger part to the smaller part. What is the value of this ratio?

1. (51/2 − 1)

2. (51/2 + 1) / 2

3. (51/2 + 1) / 4

4. (51/2 + 1) / (51/2 − 1)

5. (51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1)

IMO (51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1)

x smaller number
y larger number

(x+y)/y = y/x

(51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1) = 57/49 ~ 106/57

Whats the OA?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

by Ian Stewart » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:34 pm
Let x be the number, and let's divide x up so that:

x = y + z

and y > z. Because the question tells us that the ratio of x to y is equal to the ratio of y to z, we have the following:

(y+z)/y = y/z

so

1 + z/y = y/z

If we let r = y/z (notice that r is what the question is asking for), this becomes:

1 + 1/r = r
0 = r^2 - r- 1

You can use the quadratic formula (ruling out the negative solution, since r must be positive) to find that r = (1 + sqrt(5))/2.

That's just the famous 'golden ratio', incidentally. I'm not sure where the answer choices in the original post came from...
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:20 am
incidentally. I'm not sure where the answer choices in the original post came from...
applying my awesome psychic cold reading powers, which even work across broadband connections, i deduce that "51/2" is supposed to be 5^(1/2), or, √5.
likewise for the rest.
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:04 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 36 times

by Morgoth » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:42 am
I have a question about finding roots of quadratic equation.

r^2-r-1 = 0

Are you using the b^2-4ac formula for finding the roots, if not what is the other way of finding the precise root when one cannot simplify the equation. [trial & error]

If yes, then i presume this cannot be a part of GMAT since GMAT does not expects us to remember the b^2-4ac formula as discussed previously on this forum itself.

It'd be nice if you could point me in the right direction.

Thanks.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 2:03 pm

Hmm that was a bit ambigous

by sumidi » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:56 am
I dont know why you all thought the same(maybe it shows I haven't done enought questions like these). But when I read the first line "A natural number is divided into two positive unequal parts " I instantly assumed

x= y*z
NOT

x = y + z

Silly Silly me.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:48 am
Thanked: 48 times

by stop@800 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:46 pm
Morgoth wrote:I have a question about finding roots of quadratic equation.

r^2-r-1 = 0

Are you using the b^2-4ac formula for finding the roots, if not what is the other way of finding the precise root when one cannot simplify the equation. [trial & error]
If you can't simplify the equation [in terms of sum and products] then there is very good probability that the roots are not integers.

so you will have to use below mention formula

roots = (-b + sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)) / (2a) and (-b - sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)) / (2a)

If yes, then i presume this cannot be a part of GMAT since GMAT does not expects us to remember the b^2-4ac formula as discussed previously on this forum itself.

It'd be nice if you could point me in the right direction.

Thanks.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

Re: Hmm that was a bit ambigous

by Ian Stewart » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:47 pm
sumidi wrote:I dont know why you all thought the same(maybe it shows I haven't done enought questions like these). But when I read the first line "A natural number is divided into two positive unequal parts " I instantly assumed

x= y*z
NOT

x = y + z

Silly Silly me.
Not silly at all - I think that's a perfectly natural way to interpret the question, and I considered that interpretation as well before realizing that you wouldn't be able to get a unique answer that way. If this were a real GMAT question (it clearly is not!), the wording would not be so open to interpretation- it would be clear what was meant on the real test.

Morgoth- yes, I've used the quadratic formula in my solution. I have never seen a real GMAT question that requires the quadratic formula, and for that reason, I don't think this question is much like anything you'll see on the real test.

Ron- you do indeed have awesome powers. :)
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Quant

by pradeepss » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:28 pm
Morgoth wrote:
pradeepss wrote:A natural number is divided into two positive unequal parts such that the ratio of the original number to the larger (divided) part is equal to the ratio of the larger part to the smaller part. What is the value of this ratio?

1. (51/2 − 1)

2. (51/2 + 1) / 2

3. (51/2 + 1) / 4

4. (51/2 + 1) / (51/2 − 1)

5. (51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1)

IMO (51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1)

x smaller number
y larger number

(x+y)/y = y/x

(51/2 + 3) / (51/2 − 1) = 57/49 ~ 106/57

Whats the OA?

Let N be the natural number and L be the larger of the two individual parts.
Then, the given relation is N / L = L / (N − L).
∴ N 2 − LN = L2.
Let the required ratio be R = N / L. Dividing the above equation by L2 gives
R2 − R − 1 = 0.
The solution to the above quadratic equation isR = (1 + 51/2) / 2.
Since N is a natural number, only the positive root is considered for R.
Target 700 and HAAS
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1