You can deduce the question to, S(a) = {a, -a} and also S(a, b)= {a, b, ab}
Now from statement 1, we know S has 1 and -1. But at the same time, may be S also has 4, means -4 is in the set, so INSUFFICIENT.
From 2, S={2, -2} and since we can treat a= 2, b =-2, ab = -4 is also in set S, so SUFFICENT.
Set of Integer Question
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
i love this sort of notation - it's exciting, in its own cute little way.You can deduce the question to, S(a) = {a, -a} and also S(a, b)= {a, b, ab}
two things:
(1) the second of these is unnecessarily limited; the set generated by a and b includes not only a, b, and ab, but also ab^2, (a^2)(b^3), and so on - in fact, any combination of a's, b's, and negative signs.
(2) i prefer the following intuitive explanations:
"if a is in S, then –a is in S" --> this means that you can flip the sign of a number and still stay in the set.
"if each of a and b is in S, then ab is in S" --> this means that you can multiply two numbers in the set, or one number times itself, and stay in the set.
so basically, you're trying to see if you can arrive at -4 by following these two types of directions.
statement (1):
if 1 is in S, then we can flip the sign and find that -1 is also in S.
but 1 x 1 = 1, so the multiplication rule isn't going to generate any new numbers. therefore, the only members that are guaranteed to be in S are 1 and -1.
insufficient.
NOTE: this is NOT to say that 1 and -1 are the only numbers in S. S could contain a whole congeries of other numbers, which is why the statement is insufficient. (if we actually knew that the set was limited to 1 and -1, this statement would actually be sufficient.)
statement (2):
if 2 is in S, then we can flip the sign and find that -2 is also in S. multiplying these two numbers gives 2 x -2 = -4, so -4 is in S.
sufficient.
answer = b
--
here are a couple of cool variations on this problem:
* change the question to "is -32 in S?" (answer is still b)
* change statement 2 to "16 is NOT in S" (answer is still b, although for different reasons this time - post back if you can't figure out why)
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
--
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
Ron,let me double check with you w.r.t two twists you added in the post
1>Is -32 in S
considering statement 2, S will be
{2,-2,-4,4,-8,8,16,-16,32,-32.......}
So B is sufficient
2>16 is not in S
so 16,-16 is not there as well.In this scenario any factors of 16,-16 should not be there in S as well(say 2,-2,4,-4,-8,8 )
Let me know if my assumption is not correct.
1>Is -32 in S
considering statement 2, S will be
{2,-2,-4,4,-8,8,16,-16,32,-32.......}
So B is sufficient
2>16 is not in S
so 16,-16 is not there as well.In this scenario any factors of 16,-16 should not be there in S as well(say 2,-2,4,-4,-8,8 )
Let me know if my assumption is not correct.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
correct.target790 wrote: 1>Is -32 in S
considering statement 2, S will be
{2,-2,-4,4,-8,8,16,-16,32,-32.......}
So B is sufficient
close, but not quite correct.target790 wrote: 2>16 is not in S
so 16,-16 is not there as well.In this scenario any factors of 16,-16 should not be there in S as well(say 2,-2,4,-4,-8,8 )
you can have some factors of 16 without actually being able to make 16. for instance, if we only know that S contains 8 and -8 (and not, say, +/- 2 or +/- 4), then we could only put those together to make +/- 64; we wouldn't be able to generate intermediate powers of 2 such as 16 or 32.
remember, you can't work backwards from a number. you can work forwards - e.g., if 3 is in the set, then so are +/- 9, 27, 81, etc. - but the inverse isn't true; if, say, 81 is missing from S, we don't know whether S contains 27 (although we do know that 3 and 9 are missing; see below).
the real issue lies in working forward from the presence of certain factors, and in using contrapositive reasoning (if P then Q --> if not-Q then not-P), or, if you prefer, reductio ad absurdum.
here's how you settle the second part:
if -4 WERE to be in S, then you could multiply it by itself to get 16, contradicting the assumption that 16 is not in the set.
therefore, -4 can't be in the set.
sufficient.
note that "16 is not in S" is insufficient to settle the question of whether 8 is in S, even though 8 is a factor of 16.
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
--
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
Y is Stmt 1 not sufficient to answer the question??
U have 1 in S. i.e u also have -1--> i)
And u also have 1 * -1= -1 ... -->ii)
So, S ={1, -1}.
U can answer that -4 is not there in S. Y is it not sufficient. Shouldnt the answer be D.
Tell me if i am wrong.
U have 1 in S. i.e u also have -1--> i)
And u also have 1 * -1= -1 ... -->ii)
So, S ={1, -1}.
U can answer that -4 is not there in S. Y is it not sufficient. Shouldnt the answer be D.
Tell me if i am wrong.
impossible is notthing....
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Ian Stewart
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- Followed by:355 members
- GMAT Score:780
Your calculations are correct- that is, if you know that 1 is in the set, you can be sure that -1 is in the set. So the set might be {1, -1}. But that doesn't mean that 1 and -1 are the only things in the set. The set might also be {..., -9, -7, -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, 7, ...} or {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. In either case, for any a you choose, -a is in the set, and for any a and b you choose, ab is in the set.Aalriy wrote:Y is Stmt 1 not sufficient to answer the question??
U have 1 in S. i.e u also have -1--> i)
And u also have 1 * -1= -1 ... -->ii)
So, S ={1, -1}.
U can answer that -4 is not there in S. Y is it not sufficient. Shouldnt the answer be D.
Tell me if i am wrong.
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
ianstewartgmat.com
Ian Thanx for the explanation.Ian Stewart wrote:Your calculations are correct- that is, if you know that 1 is in the set, you can be sure that -1 is in the set. So the set might be {1, -1}. But that doesn't mean that 1 and -1 are the only things in the set. The set might also be {..., -9, -7, -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, 7, ...} or {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. In either case, for any a you choose, -a is in the set, and for any a and b you choose, ab is in the set.Aalriy wrote:Y is Stmt 1 not sufficient to answer the question??
U have 1 in S. i.e u also have -1--> i)
And u also have 1 * -1= -1 ... -->ii)
So, S ={1, -1}.
U can answer that -4 is not there in S. Y is it not sufficient. Shouldnt the answer be D.
Tell me if i am wrong.
impossible is notthing....
-
dwilliams05
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:07 pm
Lunar, I still dont understand how the ii) can be taken to mean two numbers multiplied together OR the number multiplied by itself? Isn't that an assumption or am i missing something in wording of this question. Sorry, I know this is a pretty old question
-
crackthetest
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:50 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
