Over a certain time period, did the # of stocks in Ruth's portfolio increase?
I Over time period, ratio of the number of shares of stock to the total number of shares of stocks and bonds increased.
II Over time period, total # of shares of stocks and bonds increased
Answer is C - both together
Can someone please explain ?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Stocks & Bonds DS question
This topic has expert replies
(1) let say you have 2 stock and 3 bond
if ratio 2:3 increases that can have 2 meaning
s increased s=3 b=3 ratio 3:3
b decreased s=2 b=2 ratio 2:2 either case ratio increases with 2 different answer
(2) it says both number increased so we can eliminate second part where bond decreased. If we use it together# of stocks increased
answer C
if ratio 2:3 increases that can have 2 meaning
s increased s=3 b=3 ratio 3:3
b decreased s=2 b=2 ratio 2:2 either case ratio increases with 2 different answer
(2) it says both number increased so we can eliminate second part where bond decreased. If we use it together# of stocks increased
answer C
rosh26 wrote:Over a certain time period, did the # of stocks in Ruth's portfolio increase?
I Over time period, ratio of the number of shares of stock to the total number of shares of stocks and bonds increased.
II Over time period, total # of shares of stocks and bonds increased
Answer is C - both together
Can someone please explain ?
-
ildude02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
altin wrote:(1) let say you have 2 stock and 3 bond
if ratio 2:3 increases that can have 2 meaning
s increased s=3 b=3 ratio 3:3
b decreased s=2 b=2 ratio 2:2 either case ratio increases with 2 different answer
(2) it says both number increased so we can eliminate second part where bond decreased. If we use it together# of stocks increased
answer C
rosh26 wrote:Over a certain time period, did the # of stocks in Ruth's portfolio increase?
I Over time period, ratio of the number of shares of stock to the total number of shares of stocks and bonds increased.
II Over time period, total # of shares of stocks and bonds increased
Answer is C - both together
I'm not sure if I understod why (i) by itself is unsufficient. From (i), the ratio is s/(s+b) instead of s: b as you used for the reasoning. For the ratio s/s+b to increase over time, number of S in the portfolio has to increase. Else, the ratio will no increase. Can someone explain if I'm missing something.
Can someone please explain ?
-
ildude02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
I'm not sure if I understod why (i) by itself is unsufficient. From (i), the ratio is s/(s+b) instead of s: b as altin used for the reasoning . For the ratio s/s+b to increase over time, number of S in the portfolio has to increase. Else, the ratio will not increase. Can someone explain if I'm missing something.
A ratio of 2:3 ("two to three") means that the whole is made up of 2 parts of one thing and 3 parts of another
you are doing percentage
Let say you have 10 s and 20 b
ratio is 1/2
you lost som b and now you have 10 s and 10 b
ratio is 1/1 ratio has increased but # stock has not
you are doing percentage
Let say you have 10 s and 20 b
ratio is 1/2
you lost som b and now you have 10 s and 10 b
ratio is 1/1 ratio has increased but # stock has not
ildude02 wrote:I'm not sure if I understod why (i) by itself is unsufficient. From (i), the ratio is s/(s+b) instead of s: b as altin used for the reasoning . For the ratio s/s+b to increase over time, number of S in the portfolio has to increase. Else, the ratio will not increase. Can someone explain if I'm missing something.
-
ildude02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
I'm reading the question as ratio of S parts to the whole(S+B). So for the numbers you suggested for S as 10 and B as 20. The ratio I'm using as per (i) is 10/(10+20), s/WHOLE(s+b) = 1/3. I thought that for this ratio to increase, S(the numerator) has to increase without which the ratio will not increase. But now thinking over it again, the ratio can increase if B decreases and S stays constant and it cna also increase if S increases and B stays constant. So it's INSUFFICIENT.
altin wrote:A ratio of 2:3 ("two to three") means that the whole is made up of 2 parts of one thing and 3 parts of another
you are doing percentage
Let say you have 10 s and 20 b
ratio is 1/2
you lost som b and now you have 10 s and 10 b
ratio is 1/1 ratio has increased but # stock has not
ildude02 wrote:I'm not sure if I understod why (i) by itself is unsufficient. From (i), the ratio is s/(s+b) instead of s: b as altin used for the reasoning . For the ratio s/s+b to increase over time, number of S in the portfolio has to increase. Else, the ratio will not increase. Can someone explain if I'm missing something.
-
brick2009
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:59 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
1) says S/(S+B) went up....
this is possible:
a.) if S goes up
b.) if B goes down...
So A is insufficient...
2.) S+B went up..
again...this can happen a.) if S stay same and B goes up... (in this is true...the S/(S+B) ratio decreases
b.) is S and B both go up.then ratio increases
B is insufficient
Taking both together...b.) of 2 fits 1) and 2.) ...hence C
as the ratio went up (according to 1) and that is possible only if S+B both change...thus S will have to go UP...
this is possible:
a.) if S goes up
b.) if B goes down...
So A is insufficient...
2.) S+B went up..
again...this can happen a.) if S stay same and B goes up... (in this is true...the S/(S+B) ratio decreases
b.) is S and B both go up.then ratio increases
B is insufficient
Taking both together...b.) of 2 fits 1) and 2.) ...hence C
as the ratio went up (according to 1) and that is possible only if S+B both change...thus S will have to go UP...
