Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 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
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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
GMATOnDemandStart 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

rates, productivity and labor cost

Expert replies
by Amrabdelnaby » Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:14 am
Hi Pros,

COuld you please explain to me the logic behind this question? coz when i plugged in numbers i found the answer is E!

At RW Press, the advertising rate, a, is inversely proportional to the productivity measure, b, which, in turn, is inversely proportional to the labor cost, c. Is the labor cost at least 200 when the productivity measure is at least 100?

(1) When c>=100, b>=50

(2) When c= 100,, a = 100
Join the discussion
Source: — Problem Solving |

by MartyMurray » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:18 pm
When values are inversely proportional, one goes up when the other goes down.

The question is a little funny, but it's asking whether c is AT LEAST 200 when b is 100. So even if c could be 200 when b is 100, if c does not have to be AT LEAST 200 when b is 100 then, I guess, the answer is "no".

(1) When c ≥ 100, b ≥ 50

c decreases when b increases.

When b ≥ 50, c already does not have to be AT LEAST 200. c only has to be AT LEAST 100.

So when b goes even higher, to b = 100, then c would probably be even lower, and anyway definitely not higher.

So while we don't know how low c is when b is 100, we know that c does not have to be AT LEAST 200.

Sufficient.

(2) When c = 100, a = 100

This tells us nothing new about the relationship between c and b.

Insufficient.

So while the question is a little funny, I guess the correct answer is A.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Join the discussion

by Amrabdelnaby » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:48 am
Marty,

The reason why I thought it would be insufficient is that the statement said greater than or equal.

for example b can be any number greater than 50. it can be 500. same goes with c!

the other way to think about it, is to say when the minimum value for b is 50, the minimum value for c is 100; and hence i could consider it sufficient.

I probably misinterpreted the question!
Marty Murray wrote:When values are inversely proportional, one goes up when the other goes down.

The question is a little funny, but it's asking whether c is AT LEAST 200 when b is 100. So even if c could be 200 when b is 100, if c does not have to be AT LEAST 200 when b is 100 then, I guess, the answer is "no".

(1) When c ≥ 100, b ≥ 50

c decreases when b increases.

When b ≥ 50, c already does not have to be AT LEAST 200. c only has to be AT LEAST 100.

So when b goes even higher, to b = 100, then c would probably be even lower, and anyway definitely not higher.

So while we don't know how low c is when b is 100, we know that c does not have to be AT LEAST 200.

Sufficient.

(2) When c = 100, a = 100

This tells us nothing new about the relationship between c and b.

Insufficient.

So while the question is a little funny, I guess the correct answer is A.
Join the discussion

by MartyMurray » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:33 am
Amrabdelnaby wrote:I probably misinterpreted the question!
What a question, written while the writer was tripping on acid.

Maybe before doing that question we too should have dropped acid.

"If ten lights on the avenue are green and ten are red, what's the name of the zookeeper's pet platypus?"
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Join the discussion

by ceilidh.erickson » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:34 pm
I don't think that the language in this one is *crazy.* In fact, it's a very close riff on #169 in OG 2016 / #168 in OG 13/2015:
In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50
However, I think the introduction of two "at leasts" makes this version more difficult to interpret.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion