IMO it is C. as least value of n which is a multiple of 11 can be determined from positive and negative both ways.
what is OA?

I think (2) is useless. If n is negative, the product of all integers from 1 to n is 0, which isn't a multiple of 990, so A.

As u mentioned, this is indeed tricky-- choose between A and C.

IMO A.
Product of integer from 1 to n (==> n!) is always a +ve number. This number is a multiple of 990 a +ve number. Then answer ends up as 11!.
coz 990 = 2 *3^2 *5 *11. The highest number is 11 and 11! includes 2, 3^2 and 5 as well.

Stmt 2: is N/S.

Can Ian/Stuart clarify pls.

thanks

yep I overlooked the fact that consecutive integers are between 1 and n hence for n negative it would become 0.

hence 2 is not needed.
my changed( following the footsteps of my country's politicians ) opinion it is A

alexhard wrote:I think (2) is useless. If n is negative, the product of all integers from 1 to n is 0, which isn't a multiple of 990, so A.

Can't we say 0 the multiple of all integers? I'm only asking

sanju09 wrote: Can't we say 0 the multiple of all integers? I'm only asking

Well good question to ask.

0 is a multiple of all integers, but a factor of none.

Based on the above rule my vote goes for C.

St1: take n = -3
the number of all integers from 1 to -3 is 0, which is a multiple of 990

take n = 11
the number of all integers from 1 to 11 is a multiple of 990.

Insuff

St2: n is positive...Insuff

Combining 1+2
the least value of n is 11.

Just my 2 cents

thats convincing mals24.

so far i have been thinking: from 1 to n means we go rightwards from 1. didnt realize it could mean going backwards as well.

this question tests math and nuances of sc and critical reasoning

mals24 wrote:

sanju09 wrote: Can't we say 0 the multiple of all integers? I'm only asking

Well good question to ask.

0 is a multiple of all integers, but a factor of none.

Based on the above rule my vote goes for C.

St1: take n = -3
the number of all integers from 1 to -3 is 0, which is a multiple of 990

take n = 11
the number of all integers from 1 to 11 is a multiple of 990.

Insuff

St2: n is positive...Insuff

Combining 1+2
the least value of n is 11.

Just my 2 cents

This is a good point. but from the GMAC perspective, when they say 1 to n, I think they mean numbers increasing from 1 and not decreasing from 1. Otherwise the phrase "1 to " in "1 to n" is meaningless, coz we can go either way from 1.

my 1 cent as well

vittalgmat wrote: This is a good point. but from the GMAC perspective, when they say 1 to n, I think they mean numbers increasing from 1 and not decreasing from 1. Otherwise the phrase "1 to " in "1 to n" is meaningless, coz we can go either way from 1.

my 1 cent as well

Actually that point confused me as well, whether from 1 to n means increasing order or not. I guess we'll have to wait for Sanju or any of the GMAT experts to comment on this.

But I feel from 1 to n could include negative values of n as well. From 1 you could go left or right on the number line.

Just my 0.5 cents

mals24 wrote:

vittalgmat wrote: This is a good point. but from the GMAC perspective, when they say 1 to n, I think they mean numbers increasing from 1 and not decreasing from 1. Otherwise the phrase "1 to " in "1 to n" is meaningless, coz we can go either way from 1.

my 1 cent as well

Actually that point confused me as well, whether from 1 to n means increasing order or not. I guess we'll have to wait for Sanju or any of the GMAT experts to comment on this.

But I feel from 1 to n could include negative values of n as well. From 1 you could go left or right on the number line.

Just my 0.5 cents

I will PM Ian/Stuart and get their Dollars
but for now my 0.25cents

So, according to what Ian has quoted and mentioned, may we interpret the following, links?

If n is a +ve integer, '1 to n' is ascending or stand-still (for n = 1); if n is a -ve integer, '1 to n' is descending; and in the absense of any clues about n....?

For me, the phrase 'A to B' is a vector, isn't that so?