Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

Thinking too much into it

Expert replies
by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:14 pm
So maybe I am thinking too much into this but I started thinking about this question and trying to prove each one insufficient and that is why I missed it.

If 4r + 2s =12, what is the value of s?

(1) r + s =5
(2) 2r + s =6

I looked at the first one and said immediately, "Yes it is sufficient because r + s can be (1,4) or (2,3) and it would equal to 12 so it is sufficient"

Then I started remember how these questions try to trick you so I started to think "Wait a minute r + s=5 could also mean r is -3 and s is 8 and then it wouldn't =12 in the stem.

Why would this not be a proper way to assume? Is it because I should take the stem to be TRUE and then figure out a way to find only the right number for r + s =5? I guess I am just confused as to why I couldn't assume that r and s are could have a negative integer and a positive one that will throw off it being completely sufficient.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by vittalgmat » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:36 pm
I approached this way.
Pls let me know if I have messed something up.

4r +2s = 12.
simplifying
2r +s = 6

stmt 1:
r +s = 5

the original eqn can be written as
r +r +s = 5
r + (r+s) = 5
r+ 6 = 5
r = -1
s = 6.
sufficient.

stmt 2
2r +s = 6.
This is same as question.
r & s cannot be found.

Insufficient.

So A

have I missed something ??
Join the discussion

by cramya » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:40 pm
Vittal,
I think u did it right!

The key is to always simplify the question stem which u did(escpecially if its a linear equation in 2 variables) The common trick is to give the simplified version of the equation as one of the statements

For example if statement 2 read

r+s/2 = 3 (its the same as the question stem ; all of us just need to be extra careful of the disguised forms) .

Regards,
Cramya
Join the discussion

by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:44 pm
vittalgmat wrote:I approached this way.
Pls let me know if I have messed something up.

4r +2s = 12.
simplifying
2r +s = 6

stmt 1:
r +s = 5

the original eqn can be written as
r +r +s = 5
r + (r+s) = 5
r+ 6 = 5
r = -1
s = 6.
sufficient.

stmt 2
2r +s = 6.
This is same as question.
r & s cannot be found.

Insufficient.

So A

have I missed something ??

the original eqn can be written as
r +r +s = 5
r + (r+s) = 5
r+ 6 = 5
r = -1
s = 6.

How can the original equation be rewritten this way from 4r + 2s = 12?

Please excuse my ignorance but I am just trying to make sure I grasp it.

It seems so easy and I am making it difficult. I like the way you simplified the second part of the problem to make it the exact same as the main stem. That is what it said to do in the book. How did you know to do that? My eye didn't even catch it!
Join the discussion

by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:46 pm
cramya wrote:Vittal,
I think u did it right!

The key is to always simplify the question stem which u did(escpecially if its a linear equation in 2 variables) The common trick is to give the simplified version of the equation as one of the statements

For example if statement 2 read

r+s/2 = 3 (its the same as the question stem ; all of us just need to be extra careful of the disguised forms) .

Regards,
Cramya
Oh ok so it is a common thing for the GMAT makers to do that? Is that why vittal or other people would know to look for that?

The cool thing is, I know to look for it now!!
Join the discussion

by cramya » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:48 pm
Other way to look at

Question stem:

2r+s=6

Statement I says r+s=5

2 different equations wiht 2 variables . Can be solved for s.

SUFFICIENT
Join the discussion

by cramya » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:50 pm
Oh ok so it is a common thing for the GMAT makers to do that? Is that why vittal or other people would know to look for that?

The cool thing is, I know to look for it now!!
I am sure u will get to know the common traps as u dive deep in to your prep. This forum is excellent in that way..(U can brwse through problems/solutions posted and u will come across several tips/tricks this being one)

Good luck!
Join the discussion

by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:50 pm
cramya wrote:Other way to look at

Question stem:

2r+s=6

Statement I says r+s=5

2 different equations wiht 2 variables . Can be solved for s.

SUFFICIENT
OHHH

so the 2r+s=6 is where r+r+s=6?
Join the discussion

by cramya » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:54 pm
OHHH

so the 2r+s=6 is where r+r+s=6?
I think Vittal had a typo where he said r=-1.Probably he meant to write r=1

For this problem

r will be 1 s will be 4.

2r+s can be written as r+r+s (r+r=2r)
so r+r+s = 6

r+5 = 6 (since its given in stmt I r+s=5)
r=1

r+s=5
1+s=5
s=4

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Cramya
Join the discussion

by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:00 pm
It does help, but what I was doing was ASSUMING that r+s=5 could have an r value of -4 per se and an s value of 9. In this case the 4r + 2s=12 would not work. That is why I deemed it insufficient. Is that just not the way to think? and why?
Join the discussion

by cramya » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:04 pm
I think in this problem we are trying to get to a unique vaue for s which we can from the question stem and stmt I
but what I was doing was ASSUMING that r+s=5 could have an r value of -4 per se and an s value of 9. In this case the 4r + 2s=12 would not work.
Yes with r=-4 and s=9 4r + 2s=12 will not work. This tells us that these are not the valeus for r and s. We need to find for what values these will work and hence we use the 2 different equations to get to those values.
Join the discussion

by vbcannon » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:06 pm
cramya wrote:I think in this problem we are trying to get to a unique vaue for s which we can from the question stem and stmt I
but what I was doing was ASSUMING that r+s=5 could have an r value of -4 per se and an s value of 9. In this case the 4r + 2s=12 would not work.
Yes with r=-4 and s=9 4r + 2s=12 will not work. This tells us that these are not the valeus for r and s. We need to find for what values these will work and hence we use the 2 different equations to get to those values.
Ok so basically instead of me trying to find the unique value, I started trying to find all the ways it could be wrong instead of focusing on seeing if r + s=5 could help me solve the stem.

I see.

Thank you very much!
Join the discussion

by vittalgmat » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:51 am
Oops, .. I was away from my PC for a while..
That is a delicious dialogue betwn vb and cramya.. nice..

vbcannon,
to answer your question on how did I figure out the simplification, 2 simple
answers: 1) Practise
2) actively reading on this forum. We have some brilliant minds here who have mastered the tricks of the trade...

I keep on the look out and every new trick/trap I encounter, I note in my cheatsheet. (rather I need to call it cheatbook).

Dont worry.. as ur prep progresses u will get better. As a matter of fact, I am seeing some glimmer of hope only in the past 2 weeks...

ht helps
Join the discussion

by vittalgmat » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:57 am
vbcannon,
I did the following to pick up some of the tricks/traps/juicy discussions.
Paste the following string into the "advanced search" on the top of the BTG page.
ian stewart, stuart kovinsky, stacey koprince, cramya, logitech, parallel_chase

BTW there are others whom I cant just remember.
Browse thru the search output and understand the discussion.
This has helped immensely esp. DS number properties.

HT Helps
Join the discussion

by ivanoski » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:06 pm
sooo.. whats the officil answer? i get B , statement 2 only

because whith the first statement: r=5-s and s= -4/3

And statement 2: r= (6-s) / 2 and s=0


plugging in each one to the initial question: 4r+2s=12

with statement 1:

4(5-(-4/3)) + s(-4/3) = 22.6667 /= 12

With statement 2:
4((6-0)/2)+2(0) = 12

therefore s MUST be = 0 in order to comply with the initial question , the value of "s" AND (whatever is here) = 12

therefore i think the answere is statement 2 alone, (b) am i right?
¡¡¡¡ɥƃnouǝ uoos ɥɔʇıq ʎɯ ǝq ןןıʍ ʇɐɯƃ ǝɥʇ
Join the discussion