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 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget 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

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

Ratios

Expert replies
by Rudy414 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:28 pm
The ratio of SUVs to passenger cars sold at a particular automobile dealership has been declining from 2003 to 2007, while total sales have remained constant. The total number of vehicles sold in 2007 was divisible by 10. In 2007, were more cars sold than SUVs?

1) If in 2007 as many SUVs had been sold as cars were sold in 2003, there would have been a 36% increase in total vehicle sales.

2) in 2003, twice as many SUVs were sold as cars.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Anju@Gurome » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:57 pm
Rudy414 wrote:The ratio of SUVs to passenger cars sold at a particular automobile dealership has been declining from 2003 to 2007, while total sales have remained constant. The total number of vehicles sold in 2007 was divisible by 10. In 2007, were more cars sold than SUVs?

1) If in 2007 as many SUVs had been sold as cars were sold in 2003, there would have been a 36% increase in total vehicle sales.
2) in 2003, twice as many SUVs were sold as cars.
Let us also assume that in 2003, number of cars sold was C3 and and number of SUVs sold was S3, and in 2007, those figures are C7 and S7, respectively.
As the total sale remained constant, (C3 + S3) = (C7 + S7)

As the ratio of SUV to car is declining but the sum is constant, S3 > S7 and C3 < C7
We need to determine whether C7 > S7 or not.

Statement 1: If S7 was equal to C3, then the sum (C7 + S7) would have been increased.
This simply means, S7 < C3
As C3 < C7, S7 < C7

Sufficient

Statement 2: S3 = 2*C3 ---> S3 > C3
But from this information we cannot determine whether C7 > S7 or not.

Not sufficient

The correct answer is A.
Anju Agarwal
Quant Expert, Gurome

Backup Methods : General guide on plugging, estimation etc.
Wavy Curve Method : Solving complex inequalities in a matter of seconds.

§ GMAT with Gurome § Admissions with Gurome § Career Advising with Gurome §
Join the discussion

by megamutter » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:29 am
Anju@Gurome wrote:
Rudy414 wrote:The ratio of SUVs to passenger cars sold at a particular automobile dealership has been declining from 2003 to 2007, while total sales have remained constant. The total number of vehicles sold in 2007 was divisible by 10. In 2007, were more cars sold than SUVs?

1) If in 2007 as many SUVs had been sold as cars were sold in 2003, there would have been a 36% increase in total vehicle sales.
2) in 2003, twice as many SUVs were sold as cars.
Let us also assume that in 2003, number of cars sold was C3 and and number of SUVs sold was S3, and in 2007, those figures are C7 and S7, respectively.
As the total sale remained constant, (C3 + S3) = (C7 + S7)

As the ratio of SUV to car is declining but the sum is constant, S3 > S7 and C3 < C7
We need to determine whether C7 > S7 or not.

Statement 1: If S7 was equal to C3, then the sum (C7 + S7) would have been increased.
This simply means, S7 < C3
As C3 < C7, S7 < C7

Sufficient

Statement 2: S3 = 2*C3 ---> S3 > C3
But from this information we cannot determine whether C7 > S7 or not.

Not sufficient

The correct answer is A.
Thx for posting, the solution is very good.
But if I try the problem, I dont have sufficiant time. Is there some advice on how to speed up the process with the inequalities?
Help would be appreciated.
Join the discussion