DanaJ wrote:I initially wanted to solve this problem algebraically, but I soon realized it wouldn't take me far.
So I started plugging in numbers...
Now, let's analyze each stmt:
1. provides no new info: it's obvious that, since the remainder of dividing n to 3 is 2, n - 2 will be divisible by 3. This means that 1 is insufficient.
2 was a bit more challenging, but I ended up plugging in the smallest numbers I could think of. This is why I ended up with two cases that were both consistent with the restrictions of the problem, but provided different answers:
a. n = 5
t = 27
nt = 27 * 5 = 3 * 9 * 5 = 15 * 9 - in this case, nt is divisible by 15, so the remainder will be 0.
b. n = 14
t = 27
nt = 27 * 14 - in this case, nt is obviously not divisible by 15 (since we don't have a 5 in there somewhere), so the remainder is not going to be equal to 0, like in the previous case. We're not even interested into finding out this remainder, since knowing that it is different from 0 is enough to tell that there are two possible cases for stmt 2.
Put both stmts together and you get nothing still, since we've already established that stmt 1 has no value.
So my guess will be E
What is the OA?
Did you mean to make t=21?
27/3 is 9 -> 9/5 doesn't give a remainder of 2.
Instead if you make t=21
nt = 21*5 = 105 / 15 = 7 Remainder 0
Other than that your logic makes sense