1000 DS Section 1 - 22

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:15 am

1000 DS Section 1 - 22

by lorddima » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:38 am
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.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2621
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:57 am
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!
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

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:08 am
Long story short- don't worry about this question too much!
Thanks!!
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!!

Legendary Member
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:29 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:10 members

by Night reader » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:39 pm
lorddima 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.
question given: P=C+4C/10 <-- EQ1
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