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

Redeem

Age problem

Expert replies
by rupsk » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:34 am
During one of the test I came across this problem but even after reading the explanation I am not able to understand it. Please help me I had picked up D as an answer while correct ans is E.

Ten years ago, scientists predicted that the animal z would become extinct in t years. What is t?

(1) Animal z became extinct 4 years ago.

(2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.


My Explanation.
for (1): it says that "t" wud be six as if u take any value of current time then it will conclude for it.

For (2): also same logic and u can get precise ans.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Frankenstein » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:55 am
Hi,
Prediction is different from extinction really hapepning
From(1):
Animal z extincted 6 years after the scientist made prediction. But, we do not know whether his prediction is correct.
If his prediction had been correct, t = 6 else not equal to 6
Not sufficient
From(2):
t+3 would be either 2 more or 2 less than the actual extinction time. WE cannot solve for t with this info.
Not sufficient

Both(1) and (2):
if t = 1, t+3 = 4 (2 less than 6)
if t = 5, t+3 = 8 (2 more than 6)
Not sufficient

Hence, E
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by rupsk » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:00 am
But for the (1) ho we can say that prediction is not correct, I mean it clearly says that it got extinct 4 years go so there is no question on it?
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:07 am
rupsk wrote:But for the (1) ho we can say that prediction is not correct, I mean it clearly says that it got extinct 4 years go so there is no question on it?
Hi,
It extincted 6 years after he made prediction. But, we do not know if he had predicted t as 6 or not from the given info.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by rupsk » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:19 am
Sorry but I am not able to understand your logic.
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:37 am
rupsk wrote:Sorry but I am not able to understand your logic.
Hmm. You are assuming that the scientist predicted the extinction period accurately.
Let's say you predicted earthquake to occur in 2012. But, that earthquake occurred in 2020. So, in 2030, if I say that earth quake occurred in 2020 and that in 2011, you predicted the earth quake to occur. Based on my statements can anyone tell that you predicted to occur in 2020?
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by rupsk » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:58 pm
Got it for first part can you elaborate second part also.
Join the discussion

by mirantdon » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:22 pm
it is something like when we consider t=0 for our frame of reference but we can define the absolute value of t . The question is something of that sort .It specifies one frame of reference (i.etime)
Join the discussion

by rupsk » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:43 pm
But still not more elaborative in perspective of second option. If possible please explain the second option in detail.
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:21 pm
rupsk wrote:Got it for first part can you elaborate second part also.
Hi,
Statement(2) is too general.
Consider statement(2) independently. Forget everything about statement(1) while considering statement(2)
From(2):
We do not know when the species were extinct. Moreover, for each value of extinction period, say k, we get two values for 't'.
t+3 = k+2 or k-2.
So, even by using both (1) and (2): we get t+3 = 6+2 or 6-2
So, t = 5 or 1
Not sufficient
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by rupsk » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:39 am
Thanks. Finally got it
Join the discussion

by blackjack » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:28 am
I got trapped by (2) If the scientists had extended their extinction prediction for animal z by 3 years, their prediction would have been incorrect by 2 years.
I didn't realize that 'incorrect by 2 years' can mean +2 and -2. Moral of the story: read question stem very very carefully!
Join the discussion