Hi!
Could someone be so kind and explain why the answer (2) is not sufficient? Answer 1 is sufficient, thats for sure. I would say answer 2 is also sufficient, I would devide 1,953 by 1.4 and get the price. But in the booklet is indicated that only 1 is suffient????
Thank you in advance!
22. A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent of the original cost. What was the original cost of the bracelet?
(1) After reducing this asking price by 10 percent, the jewelry dealer sold the bracelet at a profit of $403.
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.
1000 DS Section 1 - 22
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Ian Stewart
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2621
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- Followed by:355 members
- GMAT Score:780
I'm curious- where is this question from? If 2) is not sufficient, it's only because of a technicality. We know that the "jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent". While the dealer may have 'intially offered' the bracelet at that price, that doesn't mean the dealer actually sold the bracelet at that price. He or she may have later changed the price. So, statement 2, which reads:
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.
is not sufficient, because we don't know if the jeweller changed the price of the bracelet after the initial offer.
In any case, the second statement is quite ambiguous, and many people would quite naturally think that $1953 is the price of the bracelet with the 40% markup. I suppose the information in Statement 1 does suggest that the price could change, however, which does help to clarify the situation. I've seen many real GMAT questions, and I can't recall any at the moment that test such a minor technicality. Long story short- don't worry about this question too much!
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.
is not sufficient, because we don't know if the jeweller changed the price of the bracelet after the initial offer.
In any case, the second statement is quite ambiguous, and many people would quite naturally think that $1953 is the price of the bracelet with the 40% markup. I suppose the information in Statement 1 does suggest that the price could change, however, which does help to clarify the situation. I've seen many real GMAT questions, and I can't recall any at the moment that test such a minor technicality. Long story short- don't worry about this question too much!
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
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
Thanks!!Long story short- don't worry about this question too much!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:29 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:10 members
question given: P=C+4C/10 <-- EQ1lorddima wrote:Hi!
Could someone be so kind and explain why the answer (2) is not sufficient? Answer 1 is sufficient, thats for sure. I would say answer 2 is also sufficient, I would devide 1,953 by 1.4 and get the price. But in the booklet is indicated that only 1 is suffient????
Thank you in advance!
22. A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale at an asking price that would give a profit to the dealer of 40 percent of the original cost. What was the original cost of the bracelet?
(1) After reducing this asking price by 10 percent, the jewelry dealer sold the bracelet at a profit of $403.
(2) The jewelry dealer sold the bracelet for $1,953.
st(1) 9P/10=C+403 <--EQ2, EQ1-EQ2, solve for C, C=1,550, Sufficient;
st(2) P=1,953 then 1,953=C+4C/10, C=~1,775 Sufficient OR Not Sufficient?
to answer this question we need to re-read the question now: A jewelry dealer initially offered a bracelet for sale
(not sold, only offered)
looks like CR query embedded into the Math section
OA insists on A, let it be A