## Divisible by 3

##### This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 351
Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Thanked: 57 times
Followed by:4 members

### Divisible by 3

by akhilsuhag » Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:10 pm
Is the tens digit of a three-digit positive integer p divisible by 3?

(1) p-7 is a multiple of 3

(2) p-13 is a multiple of 3
Please press "thanks" if you think my post has helped you.. Cheers!!

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15533
Joined: 25 May 2010
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1898 members
GMAT Score:790
by GMATGuruNY » Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:28 pm
akhilsuhag wrote:Is the tens digit of a three-digit positive integer p divisible by 3?

(1) p-7 is a multiple of 3

(2) p-13 is a multiple of 3
Note:
0 is considered divisible by EVERY POSITIVE INTEGER.

Statement 1: p-7 is a multiple of 3
Make a list of options for p-7:
p-7 = 93, 96, 99, 102, 105...

Adding 7 to each value in the list, we get the following options for p:
p = 100, 103, 106, 109, 112...

If p=100, then its tens digit is 0, which is divisible by 3.
If p=112, then its tens digit is 1, which is NOT divisible by 3.
INSUFFICIENT.

Statement 2: p-13 is a multiple of 3
Make a list of options for p-13:
p-13 = 87, 90, 93, 96, 99...
Adding 13 to each value in the list, we get the following options for p:
p = 100, 103, 106, 109, 112...

Both statements yield the same list of options for p.
Implication:
Even when the two statements are combined, it's possible that p=100 (in which case its tens digit is divisible by 3) or that p=112 (in which case its tens digit is NOT divisible by 3).
Thus, the the two statements combined are INSUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is E.
Mitch Hunt
Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE
[email protected]

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.

Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15564
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1266 members
GMAT Score:770
by [email protected] » Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:29 pm
akhilsuhag wrote:Is the tens digit of a three-digit positive integer p divisible by 3?

(1) p-7 is a multiple of 3
(2) p-13 is a multiple of 3
Target question: Is the tens digit of a three-digit positive integer p divisible by 3?

IMPORTANT: When I scan the two statements, I see that they both tell me the SAME THING.
There's a rule that says: If N and K are both divisible by d, then N+K and N-K are also divisible by d.

OBSERVE: p-13 is 6 less than p-7. In other words, (p-7) - 6 = p-13

Statement 1 tells us that p-7 is divisible by 3, and we know that 6 is divisible by 3. So, by the above rule, p-13 must be divisible by 3.

When two statements provide the SAME information, we can conclude that the correct answer will be either D or E.

Statement 1: p-7 is a multiple of 3
There are several values of p that satisfy this condition. Here are two:
Case a: p = 139, in which case p-7 = 132, and 132 is divisible by 3. In this case, the tens digit of p (3) IS divisible by 3
Case b: p = 118, in which case p-7 = 111, and 111 is divisible by 3. In this case, the tens digit of p (1) is NOT divisible by 3
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, statement 1 is NOT SUFFICIENT

Statement 2: p-13 is a multiple of 3
We already learned that statements 1 and 2 provide the SAME information. So, if statement 1 is NOT SUFFICIENT, we know that statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT

If you're not convinced, check out these two conflicting cases:
Case a: p = 139, in which case p-13 = 126, and 126 is divisible by 3. In this case, the tens digit of p (3) IS divisible by 3
Case b: p = 118, in which case p-13 = 105, and 105 is divisible by 3. In this case, the tens digit of p (1) is NOT divisible by 3
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT

Statements 1 and 2 combined
Since both statements are not sufficient, and since both statements provide the SAME information, the combined statements are NOT SUFFICIENT

Answer = E

Cheers,
Brent

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members
by Mathsbuddy » Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:47 am
Consider the value p = ABC where A,B,C are the three digits.
Working backwards, firstly, for B to be a multiple of 3, it can only be 3, 6 or 9.

So, these are possibilities:
p = A3C, A6C, A9C

If we subtract 7 (= -10 + 3)we get:
p = A2C+3, A5C+3, A8C+3
For p to be a multiple of 3, then the sum of all digits must be a multiple of 3
As A and C are both undefined, then Statement A is NOT SUFFICIENT

Instead if we subtract 13 (= -10 - 3)we get:
p = A2C-3, A5C-3, A8C-3
For p to be a multiple of 3, then the sum of all digits must be a multiple of 3
As A and C are both undefined, then Statement A is NOT SUFFICIENT

Combined statements will still leave A and C undefined. NOT SUFFICIENT>

Answer = (E)

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15564
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1266 members
GMAT Score:770
by [email protected] » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:52 am
Mathsbuddy wrote: Working backwards, firstly, for B to be a multiple of 3, it can only be 3, 6 or 9.
Hey Mathsbuddy,

You're absolutely right about the answer being E, but be careful. If B is a multiple of 3, then B can equal 0, 3, 6 or 9

Zero is a multiple of all integers. Likewise, zero is divisible by all integers.

Cheers,
Brent

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members
by Mathsbuddy » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:05 am
[email protected] wrote:
Mathsbuddy wrote: Working backwards, firstly, for B to be a multiple of 3, it can only be 3, 6 or 9.
Hey Mathsbuddy,

You're absolutely right about the answer being E, but be careful. If B is a multiple of 3, then B can equal 0, 3, 6 or 9

Zero is a multiple of all integers. Likewise, zero is divisible by all integers.

Cheers,
Brent
Thanks Brent, I did wonder if I should have included zero!
However, as it is not sufficient for the other values, it's sufficiency for zero becomes obsolete.
Nonetheless, I haven't totally convinced myself if 'working backwards' is 100% valid!

• Page 1 of 1