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

Redeem

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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 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
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
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
GMATOnDemand Start 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

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Least possible problem - Tough numbers problem

Expert replies
by just4myself » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:57 am
The sides of a square region measured to the nearest centimeters, are 6 centimeters long. The least possible value of the actual area of the square region is :
A) 36.00 sq. cm
B) 35.00 sq. cm
C) 33.75 sq. cm
D) 30.25 sq. cm
E) 25.00 sq. cm

Please write your explanation...

Will post the OA tomo...

Thank you
Join the discussion
Source: — Problem Solving |

by pepeprepa » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:04 am
Well like that, I would have answered 5.6*5.6 because when we say "to the nearest " centimer, 5.5 is as close as 5 as to 6. The question is badly wrote for me and should say"rounded to the centimer" if they want us to find 5.5*5.5
But anyway you don't have 5.6*5.6
so it is 5.5*5.5=30.25
Join the discussion

by parallel_chase » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:05 am
Rounded to the nearest 6 cms
least possible value = 5.5

Least possible area = 5.5*5.5 =30.25

D
Last edited by parallel_chase on Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by pepeprepa » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:11 am
Chase, you don't make difference between rounded to and nearest ?
I think there was a question which was based on it.
Join the discussion

by just4myself » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:13 am
Yes D is the right answer...
But did u eliminate the possibility of the side being 5.9 cm, just by looking at the answer choices?
Join the discussion

by parallel_chase » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:15 am
pepeprepa you are absolutely right i meant rounded to 6cm
least possible value =5.5 cms

I didnt looked at 5.9

I calculated 5.6 first, then realized 5.5 can also be rounded to 6.
Join the discussion

by pepeprepa » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:22 am
But do you think the question is wrong?
Join the discussion

by Ian Stewart » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:52 am
pepeprepa wrote:But do you think the question is wrong?
There is nothing wrong with the question, as written. When you write this:
pepeprepa wrote: Well like that, I would have answered 5.6*5.6 because when we say "to the nearest " centimer, 5.5 is as close as 5 as to 6.
you are correct that 5.5 is as close to 5 as it is to 6. Still, even if you do not accept that 5.5 should round off to 6, the length of a side can be as close to 5.5 as you like; there is no reason to assume we have one decimal point precision here. The length of each side could be

5.500000000000000000000000001

for example.
Join the discussion

by pepeprepa » Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:34 pm
The point I noticed from the following https://www.beatthegmat.com/x-and-y-t15125.html

Am I wrong on this difference between closest/rounded ?
closest integer of x+y is 4
3.5<x+y<4.5
x+y rounded to the unit gives 4
3.5 <= x+y <= 4.5

I understand the least possible value can be "5.500000000000000000000000001", very close to 5, but I don't understand the result question gives the feeling it is exactly 5.5 and not an approximation...
Join the discussion