BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
138 v2 Does this have finite decimal?
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
C maybe ?
(1) the decimal will be in the form ( 1/(5^n)*q) - thus, the denominator is a multiple of five. But we don't know anything about q. Insufficient.
(2) The denominator is a multiple of 3. But we don't have anything about p. BUT:
Read in MGMAT FDPs that "when you express terminating decimals as fractions in lowest levels. they only have 2's and/or 5's as a prime factors in their denominators.
So the denominator cannot be expressed as only 2's and 5's.
Thus, 2 must be sufficient. B. ??
What is the OA.
P.s. i edited my post, the first one was definitely wrong as i chose A.
(1) the decimal will be in the form ( 1/(5^n)*q) - thus, the denominator is a multiple of five. But we don't know anything about q. Insufficient.
(2) The denominator is a multiple of 3. But we don't have anything about p. BUT:
Read in MGMAT FDPs that "when you express terminating decimals as fractions in lowest levels. they only have 2's and/or 5's as a prime factors in their denominators.
So the denominator cannot be expressed as only 2's and 5's.
Thus, 2 must be sufficient. B. ??
What is the OA.
P.s. i edited my post, the first one was definitely wrong as i chose A.
Last edited by NikolayZ on Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
IMO E
OA pls
OA pls
It does not matter how many times you get knocked down , but how many times you get up
IMO - C
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
Assuming n > 0, the value of the expression will again not have any finite decimal sequence
Assuming n < 0, the value of the expression will not have any decimal sequence
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
Assuming n > 0, the value of the expression will again not have any finite decimal sequence
Assuming n < 0, the value of the expression will not have any decimal sequence
Did you mean no decimals at all? as in 1.0mehravikas wrote:IMO - C
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
Yes I meant no zero's at all, anything to the power of zero would yield a value of 1 and 1/1 will give an integer value.
crackgmat007 wrote:Did you mean no decimals at all? as in 1.0mehravikas wrote:IMO - C
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
Isnt 1.0000 not the same as 1?mehravikas wrote:Yes I meant no zero's at all, anything to the power of zero would yield a value of 1 and 1/1 will give an integer value.
crackgmat007 wrote:Did you mean no decimals at all? as in 1.0mehravikas wrote:IMO - C
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
In theory it should be, unless there is a GMAT reason for it not to be the same 
Also, question for you: why would you get 1.000 when you divide 1 / 1?
Also, question for you: why would you get 1.000 when you divide 1 / 1?
crackgmat007 wrote:Isnt 1.0000 not the same as 1?mehravikas wrote:Yes I meant no zero's at all, anything to the power of zero would yield a value of 1 and 1/1 will give an integer value.
crackgmat007 wrote:Did you mean no decimals at all? as in 1.0mehravikas wrote:IMO - C
Assuming n = 0, the value of the expression is 1 i.e. there is no finite decimal sequence
