-
aleph777
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:19 am
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 10 times
Hello,
Quick question about DS problem 170 in the OG12:
If n is a positive integer, is n^3 - n divisible by 4?
(1) n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer.
(2) n^2 + n is divisible by 6.
OA: A
I followed through the logic of this, realizing n^3 - n was the series of consecutive integers (n - 1)n(n +1). But I interpreted this to mean that these three could only be divisible by 4 if either n was a multiple of four or if n was any odd number greater than 1.
Because statement (1) says k is an integer, even if it is 1, then n = 3, which makes the statement sufficient. However, I was reading the MGMAT OG Companion, which states "We are told that n must be a positive integer. Thus, the lowest possible value of n - 1 is zero. Even in this case, the product will be divisible by 4, since 0 is divisible by 4."
I don't follow that statement. If statement 1 didn't specify that k was an integer, and therefore n could have been 1, n + 1 could have been 2, and n - 1 could have been 0, statement 1 would have still be sufficient?
It's a bit of a hypothetical, but I want to make sure I understand in case something like that ever shows up. Thanks!
Quick question about DS problem 170 in the OG12:
If n is a positive integer, is n^3 - n divisible by 4?
(1) n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer.
(2) n^2 + n is divisible by 6.
OA: A
I followed through the logic of this, realizing n^3 - n was the series of consecutive integers (n - 1)n(n +1). But I interpreted this to mean that these three could only be divisible by 4 if either n was a multiple of four or if n was any odd number greater than 1.
Because statement (1) says k is an integer, even if it is 1, then n = 3, which makes the statement sufficient. However, I was reading the MGMAT OG Companion, which states "We are told that n must be a positive integer. Thus, the lowest possible value of n - 1 is zero. Even in this case, the product will be divisible by 4, since 0 is divisible by 4."
I don't follow that statement. If statement 1 didn't specify that k was an integer, and therefore n could have been 1, n + 1 could have been 2, and n - 1 could have been 0, statement 1 would have still be sufficient?
It's a bit of a hypothetical, but I want to make sure I understand in case something like that ever shows up. Thanks!













