BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

rates, productivity and labor cost

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:01 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

rates, productivity and labor cost

by Amrabdelnaby » Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:14 am
Hi Pros,

COuld you please explain to me the logic behind this question? coz when i plugged in numbers i found the answer is E!

At RW Press, the advertising rate, a, is inversely proportional to the productivity measure, b, which, in turn, is inversely proportional to the labor cost, c. Is the labor cost at least 200 when the productivity measure is at least 100?

(1) When c>=100, b>=50

(2) When c= 100,, a = 100
Top
Source: — Problem Solving |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:18 pm
When values are inversely proportional, one goes up when the other goes down.

The question is a little funny, but it's asking whether c is AT LEAST 200 when b is 100. So even if c could be 200 when b is 100, if c does not have to be AT LEAST 200 when b is 100 then, I guess, the answer is "no".

(1) When c ≥ 100, b ≥ 50

c decreases when b increases.

When b ≥ 50, c already does not have to be AT LEAST 200. c only has to be AT LEAST 100.

So when b goes even higher, to b = 100, then c would probably be even lower, and anyway definitely not higher.

So while we don't know how low c is when b is 100, we know that c does not have to be AT LEAST 200.

Sufficient.

(2) When c = 100, a = 100

This tells us nothing new about the relationship between c and b.

Insufficient.

So while the question is a little funny, I guess the correct answer is A.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:01 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by Amrabdelnaby » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:48 am
Marty,

The reason why I thought it would be insufficient is that the statement said greater than or equal.

for example b can be any number greater than 50. it can be 500. same goes with c!

the other way to think about it, is to say when the minimum value for b is 50, the minimum value for c is 100; and hence i could consider it sufficient.

I probably misinterpreted the question!
Marty Murray wrote:When values are inversely proportional, one goes up when the other goes down.

The question is a little funny, but it's asking whether c is AT LEAST 200 when b is 100. So even if c could be 200 when b is 100, if c does not have to be AT LEAST 200 when b is 100 then, I guess, the answer is "no".

(1) When c ≥ 100, b ≥ 50

c decreases when b increases.

When b ≥ 50, c already does not have to be AT LEAST 200. c only has to be AT LEAST 100.

So when b goes even higher, to b = 100, then c would probably be even lower, and anyway definitely not higher.

So while we don't know how low c is when b is 100, we know that c does not have to be AT LEAST 200.

Sufficient.

(2) When c = 100, a = 100

This tells us nothing new about the relationship between c and b.

Insufficient.

So while the question is a little funny, I guess the correct answer is A.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:33 am
Amrabdelnaby wrote:I probably misinterpreted the question!
What a question, written while the writer was tripping on acid.

Maybe before doing that question we too should have dropped acid.

"If ten lights on the avenue are green and ten are red, what's the name of the zookeeper's pet platypus?"
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:34 pm
I don't think that the language in this one is *crazy.* In fact, it's a very close riff on #169 in OG 2016 / #168 in OG 13/2015:
In a certain business, production index p is directly proportional to efficiency index e, which is in turn directly proportional to investment i. What is p if i = 70?

(1) e = 0.5 whenever i = 60
(2) p = 2.0 whenever i = 50
However, I think the introduction of two "at leasts" makes this version more difficult to interpret.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1