http://www.gmathacks.com/data-sufficiency/gmat-data-sufficiency-general-or-specific.

html

It's a useful method, one that I advocate for some questions. However, assigning values to variables is only useful if you apply it with care: while you're working with a specific number, you need to think about the general implications. If x = 4, will you get the same results you would for all values of x? All positive values of x? All evens? All perfect squares? You usually won't have time to try every possible value for each variable, so you must think abstractly. To give you a better idea of what I mean, let's look at a sample question, DS question #112 from page 287 of the Official Guide to GMAT Review: Is k greater than t? (1) kt = 24 (2) k^2 > t^2 Most people approach this question by trying a few values for k and t and seeing if a rule emerges. An edited version of that thought process might look like this: (1) If k is 8, then t is 3...but if k is 4, then t is 6. Insufficient. (2) If k is 6, t could be 4...but if k is -6, t could still be 4. Insufficient. Taken together: k and t could be 8 and 3, but not 4 and 6, because of (2). k and t could be 6 and 4, but not -6 and 4, because of (1). Looks like they are sufficient, taken together. The answer is (C). If you're a step ahead of me, congratulations: you know that the answer is really (E), because k and t could be -6 and -4, respectively, which makes t the greater quantity. Sometimes, when I explain this sort of thing to students in person, they start thinking they'll never figure it out: how do you know what numbers to pick, and when you don't have to pick any more numbers? To full answer that question would require another tip, but thinking in more general terms will often help avoid such pitfalls. Instead of listing as many possible values as you can, find one or two, and think about how much that number tells you. Here's how you might think about statement (2) above: (2) k^2 > t^2 If k is 6, t could be 4...in fact, any time both numbers are positive, k must be bigger than t. But, I know the GMAT likes to see if I'm thinking about negatives, so what about those? If k is negative, t could be either positive or negative, as long as the square of t is smaller

than square of k. Actually, I can use the same numbers I used before, only negative: if k is -6, t could be -4. If both numbers are number, k must be smaller than t. See the difference? The latter method of thinking may feel more cumbersome (especially at first, if it doesn't come naturally to you), but you'll rarely have to think of more than one or two sets of values for each statement. Not only that, but those sets of values will tell you more than what you've been learning from 3 or more sets using the first method of thinking. Picking numbers is a great strategy: just don't turn off your brain when you start to apply it. View each set of values as a case study with far-reaching implications, and Data Sufficiency questions that once sent your head reeling will be well within your grasp.

http://www.gmathacks.com/data-sufficiency/common-exponents-in-gmat-data-sufficiency.html

There aren't very many specific GMAT questions that are worth articles of their own, but I'm going to focus on one of those today. There are plenty of variations; let's start with one example, #26 from my Data Sufficiency: Challenge problem set: Is x > 0 ? (1) x < x^2 (2) x < x^3 (Note: "^" indicates an exponent, so "x^2 means "x to the second power" or "x squared.") You've probably seen something like it. Usually, test-takers attack this type of question by trying out various numbers for x and seeing which ones work. Given the prevalence of this sort of question, you can learn a better way. "Picking Numbers" The toughest part about choosing values for x is knowing a) which numbers to pick, and b) when you're done If it's possible to learn an approach that avoids picking numbers, it's to your advantage to do so. On questions that deal with exponents and have no coefficients, you can avoid those problems. Instead, you can focus on three numbers: -1, 0, and 1. Zones

You're not going to try those exact numbers; you're going to try numbers in the zones defined by those numbers. For instance, you want to think about one value of x that's less than -1, one value that's between -1 and 0, one value between 0 and 1, and finally, one value greater than 1. Consider how x, x^2, and x^3 behave in those four "zones:"

x = -2: x^2 = 4, x^3 = -8. Summary: x^3 < x < x^2 x = -1/2: x^2 = 1/4, x^3 = -1/8. Summary: x < x^3 < x^2 x = 1/2: x^2 = 1/4, x^3 = 1/8. Summary: x^3 < x^2 < x x = 2: x^2 = 4, x^3 = 8. Summary: x < x^2 < x^3

It may not be an effective use of your time to memorize each and every one of these relationships, but if you're familiar with these "zones," you'll know exactly what numbers to test. In Practice Let's look at the sample question one more time: Is x > 0 ? (1) x < x^2 (2) x < x^3 First, statement (1). x is almost always less than x^2, except when x is a positive number between 0 and 1. In other words, statement (1) says: "x is not between 0 and 1." In that case, it's insufficient: x could be positive or negative. Statement (2) is a bit trickier. Referring to our summaries above, x is less than x^3 when x is between -1 and 0, and when x is greater than 1. Given that x could be in either one of those zones, (2) is also insufficient. Taken together, the statements are still insufficient. (1) tells us that x could be anything less than 0 or larger than 1. (2) narrows that down somewhat: x could be between -1 and 0 or greater than 1. Thus, x could be positive or negative. Choice (E) is correct. In General Use Anytime you see variables (without coefficients) in a question like this, you can use these zones. Note that we aggressively simplified each statement: after we evaluated statement (1), we ignored what it actually said, and focused on what we discovered: that x couldn't be between 0 and 1. Reducing complex expressions to simple statements makes questions like these much easier.

http://www.gmathacks.com/data-sufficiency/improve-your-abstract-thinking-skills.html

Yesterday, I wrote about a few different approaches to GMAT Data Suffiency questions. Central to that tip was the notion that, rather than blindly picking numbers, you need to think generally about the specific cases you choose. Doing so is one of the biggest conceptual leaps you can make on the GMAT: without it, you probably can't top a 640 or so; with it, you can drastically improve your Quantitatve score beyond that. The main point here is that you need to think abstractly. Abstract thinking, as it applies to the GMAT, is the skill of taking what you know about a single case (say, "x is greater than y when x is equal to 7) and generalizing it to a variety of cases ("x is greater than y when x is positive"). When you look at a concept from a more abstract point of view, you often lose track of some of the specifics (if you know what happens when x is positive, does it matter what happens, specifically, when x = 7?), but you gain a broader perspective. In other words, you do exactly what the GMAT is asking you to do on Data Sufficiency problems. You think about many possible cases at once. Abstract Better Abstract thinking is a skill that correlates strongly to IQ: it's the sort of thing that separates extremely talented mathematicians, physicists, and computer programmers from the rest of society. I can't show you (in this space, anyway) how to ramp up your abstract thinking that far, but to get you a few more points on the GMAT, it doesn't take that big of a jump. First, as is the case with just about every other math tip on the planet, it's about practice. Every time you try a set of values on a Data Sufficiency question (if it isn't clear what I mean by this, check yesterday's tip) think about what the set is telling you. Let's look at a simple example: Is x greater than x squared? (1) x < 1 (2) x is positive If you're an old hand at this type of problem, odds are that you know that you need to think about both fractions and negatives for the first statement. As an example of fractions, use 1/2: if x = 1/2, x^2 = 1/4. Yes, in that case, x is greater than x squared. What about negatives? if x = -2, x^2 = 4. In that case, x isn't greater than x^2. Taking the Next Step In a problem like this, you may be thinking abstractly without knowing it. After checking those two sets of numbers, are you sure that 1/2 represents all fractions? That -2 represents all

negatives? (It doesn't matter, of course, since you've already proven that Statement (1) is not sufficient.) This is where you need to prod your brain to generalize. Instead of thinking about x = 1/2, think about the set of numbers that consists only of fractions. If you have a fraction (a positive number less than one), what happens when you square it? In fact, the square of a number between 0 and 1 is always smaller than the number itself. If you can take that step, you'll never doubt the usefulness of your single example and you can proceed more confidently. Let's look, now, at Statement (2). We've already considered fractions (positives less than one), so that leaves us with...positives greater than one. Remember that we're looking for a general rule, but it's still useful to try to example to see what happens. x = 2? x^2 = 4. x = 10? x^2 = 100. x^2 is always greater if x is greater than 1. Recognizing Boundaries As you may have recognized, a key component of abstract thinking on GMAT Data Sufficiency is recognizing just how much you can generalize. The example problem above is a useful one because its boundaries are so common: the rules change depending on whether x is positive or negative, and whether it's a fraction. Sometimes you may only be able to generalize rules for integers, for evens or odds, or for multiples of a specific number. Developing This Skill The number one thing you can do, on any question that asks you to think generally, is to force yourself to do just that. If it doesn't come naturally, well...you'll have to push yourself. Even if you don't do it on your first pass over a question, think about how you could generalize as you review the explanation. The thought process described in the previous paragraphs is a good outline of where you want your thinking to be. Another approach you can take is to learn to recognize the sorts of statements you will see frequently. The example question above is a great place to start: I've seen a dozen variations on that question, sometimes with x^3 instead of x^2, or -x instead of x, but the same underlying concept being tested. Knowing commonly tested patterns, like x^2 > x when x > 1, is a sort of shortcut to the sort of abstract thinking the test expects you to display. However, no shortcut will help you on the most difficult GMAT Quantitative questions. For those, you need to be able to recognize patterns and apply them within the framework of the problemall in just a couple of minutes. It is easy? Heck no. But it is a skill that can be learned, and you can only learn it if you force yourself to practice it. Even small improvements in abstract thinking can net you additional points on the Quant section. So, what are you waiting for? Practice problems await!

If you've been studying for the GMAT for a long time, you probably know the Data Sufficiency answer choices like the back of your hand. If you don't, you should! Even if you haven't been studying for very long, it's important to internalize what the choices are and what they mean: there's no excuse for wasting time on test-day reading over answer choices that you've been looking at for weeks. As a quick review, here's what the answer choices will always look like: (A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient. (B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient. (C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient. (D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient. (E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient. It's a mouthfulnot to mention the fact that it looks like the choices are shouting at us. Take out the capitalized words, and they really aren't complicated concepts. One of the benefits of knowing the Data Sufficiency answer choices well is that, each time you evaluate a statement, you can eliminate a few choices. Consider the following:

If Statement (1) is sufficient, (B), (C), and (E) are eliminated. If Statement (1) is insufficient, (A) and (D) are eliminated. If Statement (2) is sufficient, (A), (C), and (E) are eliminated. If Statement (2) is insufficient, (B) and (D) are eliminated.

Even if you can only evaluate one statement, you can guess from among 2 or 3 choices instead of 5. That in itself could be worth an extra question or two to you over the course of the 37 question (about 13 Data Sufficiency) GMAT Quantitative section. There are two more ways you can eliminate choices. These are a little more complicated, and I'll focus on them in future tips.

If Statements (1) and (2) say the exact same thing, (A), (B), and (C) are eliminated. If a statement repeats something that the question tells you, or provides no information whatsoever, that statement's choice [(A) or (B)] and (C) are eliminated.

But before you can internalize these rules, you have to internalize the answer choices. Next time you work through a set of Data Sufficiency problems, force yourself to stop after you evaluate

each statement and figure out which answer choices you can eliminate. It'll slow you down for a day or so, but after a few dozen questions, it'll be automatic. Just as it should be

You Should Learn the Math Every question you will ever pick numbers on can also be handled algebraically. Personally, I do 99% or more of GMAT questions algebraically, and in most cases teach my students to do the same. Every time you opt for picking numbers, you are practicing elementary arithmetic, when the question is really dealing with algebra or number properties. The same concepts will be tested in questions when you can't pick numbers. If you've practiced those types of questions in a more abstract fashion, you'll be able to handle questions in different forms. In my Total GMAT Math, I focus on the skills you need to answer those questions, not strategies that limit your understanding of the material. This brings us back to the first issue I mentioned: Picking numbers puts a ceiling on your score. It prevents you from practicing techniques you'll need to use on other questions. At the very least, even if you are committed to picking numbers, spend some time redoing those questions with another method. Data Sufficiency DS questions are where students tend to pick numbers the most, and it is where picking numbers requires (and often wastes) the most time. Again, picking numbers is used as a way to avoid doing the math, when sometimes the mathematical techniques required really aren't that difficult.

Let's try an example, based very closely on an example in The Official Guide:
Is n an odd number?

(1) 2n is an even number. (2) When n is divided by 2, the result is not even. Many people see a question like this, jump into the statements, and start picking values of n that make each of the statements work. Eventually you can get an answer, but it's very hard to prove that a statement is sufficient by picking numbers: You can keep choosing new values all day long, but if you're just plugging in number after number, you'll never be 100% sure that you haven't ignored one key value that gives you the opposite answer.

By contrast, try this algebraically. Statement (1) is insufficient. An even number is a number that is 2 times an integer: call it 2i. So, (1) says that 2n = 2i, or that n = 1. In other words, we know that n is an integer. Could be even, could be odd. Statement (2) is also insufficient. Again, an even number is twice an integer, so we can simplify the statement to an equation ("!=" means "not equal to"): n/2 != 2i Multiply both sides by 2: n != 4i 4i is the same as "4 times an integer," which is another way of saying "a multiple of 4." So, n is not a multiple of 4. n could be even, it could be odd, and it could be a non-integer. Taken together, the statements are still insufficient. In both statements, it was possible that n was even (as long as it wasn't a multiple of 4) or odd. Choice (E) is correct. At this point in your GMAT Prep, the explanation I just gave might seem very complicated. It takes a bit of getting used to, but I can assure you that, as questions get harder and you spent more time practicing abstract approaches to questions, this saves you an enormous amount of time over picking numbers. There are several chapters in Total GMAT Math that focus on approaches like these to just about every type of number properties question you'll face on the GMAT. It's OK, Sometimes I'll admit, there are limited cases where picking numbers is an acceptable last resort. I've been known to do it occasionally, even on the GMAT itself. But consider other alternatives first. And when you are practicing, if you pick numbers the first time you try a problem, do it again more abstractly. It's great if you know how to do it one way, but it's even better if you can do it multiple ways. You never know what variations the GMAT will introduce to these question types, and sometimes those variations make one method more effective than another. GMAT rewards mental flexibility, and nowhere on the test is that more true than Data Sufficiency. Whether you're looking at the question itself or one of the two statements, it's always worthwhile to simplify. This is especially important because DS questions will occasionally give you the same piece of information in two different ways. Just because two choices look different doesn't mean they are different. This example is fairly simple, but it illustrates the point: What is the value of a?

(1) a - b = 6 (2) b = a - 6 When you simplify the second statement, you discover it is identical to "a - b = 6." Which DS Choices? When this happens, the only possible correct answers are (D) and (E). If one statement is sufficient on its own, the other statement must be sufficient on its own. (After all, they're the same!) In that case, the correct choice is (D). If one statement is insufficent on its own, the other must be as well. Since you don't gain any advantage by putting them together, they remain insufficient even when combined, so the answer is (E). In the example above, the correct choice is (E). How Often Does This Occur? Most of the time, there's no structural trickery of this sort in DS questions. But it's always a possibility, especially on multi-variable algebra problems like the example given above. The odds are low that you'll see more than one situation like this out of the 13 DS questions on your exam. That one time, though, be ready to eliminate the first three choices. Expect--at least occasionally-to see a DS question in which both statements say the same thing. One of the advantages of the GMAT Data Sufficiency format is that you often don't have to solve algebraic equations. Simply recognizing that the equations could be solved is enough. This is especially useful when looking at information that addresses 2, 3, or more variables. It's important to remember that, no matter how many variables and equations you're working with: To solve for x variables, you need x distinct, linear equations containing those variables. For instance, given the equations x + y = 4 and x - y = 2, you can solve for x and y. That example you can probably handle easily. But the principle extends to much more complex problems. A Realistic GMAT-like Example Here's a problem from my Word Problems: Fundamentals set to show you what I mean: A sum of $300,000 from a certain estate was divided among the executor and three children. How much of the estate did the oldest child receive?

(1) The executor received 1/10 of the sum from the estate, and the youngest child received 1/3 of the remainder. (2) Each of the two older children received the same amount of money. As it turns out, the dollar figures in this problem are simple, so you don't have to treat it abstractly. However, it's good practice to do so. Notice in the question that the estate will be split four ways. Call the executor e, the oldest child a, the middle child b, and the youngest child c. Thus, the question tells us that e + a + b + c = $300,000. Algebraically speaking, we have four variables and one equation. In order to solve for the four variables, we'll need four distinct, linear equations. Let's look to the statements for more. Statement (1) gives us two more equations. e = (1/10)($300,000), and since the remainder is (9/10)($300,000), c = (1/3)(9/10)($300,000). Before you run away from all that algebra, keep in mind that you don't even have to do this much. If you recognize that the statement gives you two equations, that's plenty. The question contains one equation, (1) has two more, but we need four equations, so the statement is insufficient. Statement (2) has one equation of its own: a = b. Combined with the one equation in the question, that's not enough -- it's a total of two equations, not four. However, when we take statements (1) and (2) together, we finally have the four distinct, linear equations we need:

e + a + b + c = $300,000 e = (1/10)($300,000) c = (1/3)(9/10)($300,000) a=b

Do you want to solve for the value of a? I don't think so. Combined, the statements are sufficient, regardless of what a works out to be. Distinct and Linear A couple of times now, I've said that these equations must be "distinct" and "linear." Both are important caveats. In order for two equations to be distinct, they must not simplify to the same equation. For instance, x + y = 5 and 2x + 2y = 10 are not distinct. If you divide both sides of the second equation by 2, you'll be left with x + y = 5. That's just the same equation a second time. Thus, if a Data Sufficiency statement gives you an equation that could be simplified, simplify it! If you don't, you won't know if it's distinct from the other equations in the question and statements.

"Linear" is a more involved concept. The word is used literally: A linear equation is one that, when graphed on the coordinate plane, is a straight line. If you recall from high school geometry, pre-calculus, and the like, when squares, cubes, square roots, and other exponents appear in equations, the graphs are curved. You don't need to know anything about graphing curves and ellipses for the GMAT, just that in order for an equation to be linear, no variables can be raised to exponents (which includes square roots and other fractional exponents). Count 'em, Don't Solve 'em The only way you can use this tip to your advantage is to practice it. The next time you see a Data Sufficiency problem with multiple equations, give it a try. It won't save you time on every single such question, but the only way you'll know when to apply it is to experiment. Good luck! Unlike most question formats on standardized tests, the issue at stake on a Data Sufficiency question is what you do and don't know. It's not important to find the numerical answer to the question. Instead, you need to determine whether you could find such a single answer. For this reason, the question in many Data Sufficiency items is vague. On some questions, this lack of clarity extends to a diagram, as well. Diagrams appear with some frequency on Data Sufficiency questions, especially when the problem has to do with geometry. You'll also find diagrams--number lines, in particular--on questions dealing with other content areas, such as absolute value and inequalities. The Facts About DS Diagrams It's important to realize what these diagrams do and don't tell you. On a Data Sufficiency question, it's crucial that you assume the diagram is not to scale. Not only that, it might be radically misleading. For instance, a triangle that appears to have a right angle may not be a right triangle, and vice versa. A number line may appear to have four equally spaced points that lie on it, but the points are probably not equally spaced. Usually, all that DS diagrams tell you is how points are connected. Let's consider the examples I just mentioned. Why would the test show you a triangle if it's the completely wrong shape? They do so in order to refer to specific points or angles (like angle B or segment XY) with consistency. On a number line, if W, X, Y, and Z are on the line from left to right, you can trust that W < X < Y < Z, but you cannot take for granted that the points are spaced the way they appear to be spaced. Diagram Strategy

I like to think of Data Sufficiency diagrams as flexible. Imagine they are in a computer graphics editor, where you can click the mouse on one point and drag it, thus changing the shape of the figure. Each time you get a piece of information (perhaps that AB = BC, or that angle B is a right angle), pretend you are editing the diagram in your head. Update the diagram, make all of the conclusions you can, but remember that the diagram can still be edited. On some questions, you'll have to change your image of the diagram three times: once for statement (1), once for statement (2), and once for the statements combined. Flexibility is the key skill here. The GMAT isn't deliberately trying to confuse you with diagrams that aren't drawn to scale, but it isn't exactly helping, either. If you're prepared, you'll be able to overcome this obstacle with ease. GMAT Data Sufficiency is tricky by nature. It's unfamiliar and demands abstract thinking. Fortunately, some of the mistakes you will make (and you will make them, at least in practice!) are predictable, and I can help you avoid them. The writers of GMAT Data Sufficiency items know how most students work through DS problems. Here's a sample DS problem: What is the value of x? (1) x^2 = 25 (2) x is negative. Here's the thought process of the typical test-taker: 1. Here's the question, now I know what we're looking for. 2. Statement (1) -- that's helpful, but not enough information. x could be positive or negative. 3. Statement (2) -- hey, that's what (1) was missing! So...what's the answer? Since I'm calling your attention to the process, you've probably answered it correctly: It's (C), since both statements are necessary. But look at that thought process. The "aha!" moment comes when you look at Statement (2) the first time and realize you have enough information. Therein lies the trap. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched students go through this process and select choice (B). Everyone makes this mistake at least once, and some people never stop making it. So how can you avoid it? Being aware of the potential pitfall is a good first step. If you find yourself repeatedly falling into this trap, consider looking at Statement (2) first. (Either sometimes, or all the time.)

It also helps to force more rigor into your thought process. If you aren't already taking notes while doing every Data Sufficiency problem, you should start doing so. It can be simple: Just note whether each statement is sufficient or insufficient on its own. Taking notes seems to require an additional level of self-awareness. By doing so, you'll jot down "I(nsufficient)" or "S(ufficient)" for Statement (1), then return to the question, thinking "ok, now let's consider (2) by itself." Don't be embarrassed by the mistake--just recognize whether or not it is a problem for you. If it is, ruthlessly apply these techniques to prevent this trap from catching you ever again!

http://outbeat-the-gmat.blogspot.com/2006/12/am-i-thinking-sufficiently.html Pointers: 1. DS is not PS. (Most of the times you won't need to get a numerical answer) 2. Get rid of your biases/assumptions. (What's given is what's given and what's not given is not given!!) 3. Memorise the answer options...it's going to be the same on the actual GMAT. 4. When you can't get a definite answer...make an intelligent guess with the help of this: If 1 is sufficient...answer can be A or D. If 2 is sufficient, then answer can be B or D If none is sufficient (alone) then answer can be C or E. 5. Focus on the question stem : Don't loose track of what is being asked. 6. Look at each statement separately. I would suggest you to look at statement 2 first and then statement 1. The reason is that the sequence of the two statements tricks the reader into assuming the info given in 1 and applying it while reading 2. That's wrong!! Most careless errors on DS come when you subconsciously carry over some info from statement 1 to statement 2 (i.e. you're not actually looking at statement 2 on its own). 7. Look at both statements in combination. 8. Use lots of scratch paper. Do it neatly. It'll help.

Given that you follow all the pointers given above...you will start getting most of the DS right now. But I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that tough DS questions will have traps. And you have to be wary if them. Look out for some of these : 1. For example, most people know that if you can set up two linear equations with two unknowns, you can solve for both variables. So the natural instinct when each of the statements can be translated into an equation is to assume that the answer must be C. However, sometimes the two equations may not be independent of each other (e.g. x + 2y = 3 and 2x + 4y = 6, which are just two versions of the same equation).

2. At other times, the question stem may actually ask for a sum (e.g. a+b), and even though there are two variables, a single equation (e.g. 4a + 4b = 20) may be sufficient, since you're only asked to find the sum, not the individual values of a and b. 3. Finally, another common DS trap occurs with Yes/No questions, for example "Is x divisible by 2?". The trick here is that in DS, you are supposed to determine whether the question can be definitively answered based on the given info. So if statement 1 says "X is odd", we can in fact answer the question (in this case, the answer is "no"). So in a Yes/No question, it doesn't matter whether the answer turns out to be Yes or No - all that matters is whether the given info is sufficient to allow you to find the answer.

In addition you would like to pay more attention to the following concepts. These are the toughest concepts, asked on the GMAT. 1. Inequalities... watch out for points where equality doesnt holds... x > 3 doesnt means x can be 3... watch out for fractions....higher denominator means lower values....but in negaticve fractions...higher denominator means higher values... 2. Powers... squaring a fraction devaluates it...cubing..even more.. but a negative fraction on squaring gets bigger....but on cubing lowers....things like that 3. Modulus... Learn how mod values are dealt with.. How negative cross multiplications are done with inequalities. 4. Logarithms... Learn properties of bases...fractional bases, negative values of logs. I do it with help of graphs. 5. Composite and Prime nos... clubbed with even and odd concepts.. e.g. 2 is the only no. prime and even, etc.

http://www.gmat-pacer.com/guidec8.html

Selected Trick Questions

AMNESIA TRICK How many adults ride bicycles in city A if all adults in City A either ride bicycles or drive cars? (1) 85% of the 10,000 adults in city A drive cars. (2) 8500 adults in city A drive cars.

(A) Statement (1) is sufficient since if 8,500 drive cars then 1,500 ride bicycles. Statement (2) is not sufficient since we do not know the total population; it cannot be assumed from (1).

The trick here is that 1 alone can answer the question. Although 1 and 2 together may answer the question, the answer is still A. The unskilled reader will carry over the information from statement 1 when reading statement 2 and not catch the flaw with statement 2 (it does not tell you the population). Trick #2: note that the question doesn't tell you the total population of City A, but the total population is not relevant since the question only asks for "Adults". This question shows how you must have discipline and stick to the 3 step process. (1) Read the stem (2) Read each statement individually (3) If both statements cannot answer the question alone, then look at both statements together. Before you try to combine statement 1 and 2, make sure each answer can/cannot answer the question. When you first read statement 2, temporarily forget what you read in statement 1 so that you may evaluate if (2) alone is sufficient. Hence the name of the trick question: "Amnesia." Get temporary amnesia after reading statement 1 and don't use statement 1's information when you first evaluate statement 2 (because you need to see if statement 2 is sufficient alone. DELAY TRICK How much was a certain Babe Ruth baseball card worth in January 1991? (1) In January 1997 the card was worth $100,000. (2) Over the ten years 1987-1997, the card steadily increased in value by 10% each 12 months.

(1) alone is obviously insufficient. To use (2) you need to know what the card was worth at some time between 1987 and 1997. So (2) alone is insufficient, but by using (1) and (2) together you can figure out the worth of the baseball card in January 1991. The trick here is not to do the calculations. If you tried to actually calculate the value in January 1991, you have fallen into the trap. All that matters is that sufficient information is available. The test designers make these questions to make you waste time so that you do not finish the test on time. This is called the DELAY trick because it causes you to be delayed and lose valuable time if you do unnecessary calculations. BACKSOLVE Is the two-digit integer, with digits r (first) and m(second), a multiple of 7? (1) r + m = 13 (2) r is divisible by 3

With statements 1 and 2 we may determine that the two digit number is not a multiple of 7. Using statement (1) Try all the two digit numbers that sum 13: 94, 85, 76, 67, 58, 49. Of those, only 49 is divisible by 7. So, using statement 1, rm may or may not be a multiple of 7; it is insufficient. (2) Is not sufficient because there are many numbers with r that are divisible by 3 and that are multiples of 7 (35, 63, 98). Combined, there are NO possible numbers rm that are divisible by 7 and satisfy statements 1 and 2. The answer is NO, rm is not a multiple of 7. Using statements 1 and 2 we may deduce this.

Using statement 2, however, 49 is not a multiple of 3. So, combining the two statements proves that rm is

not a multiple of 7. In other words, we've used the two statements to deduce that rm is not a multiple of 7. This looks like a very intimidating question. As a rule, when you encounter a highly intimidating question such as this one, you should plug in possible answers. This question defies an algebraic solution, so it must be solved through backsolving.

RED HERRING TRICK Billy sells twice as many $20 tickets as Tim, and Tim sells three times as many $10 tickets as Billy. How many tickets did Billy sell? Tickets are either $10 or $20. (1) Tim sold a total of 35 tickets (2) Together Billy and Tim sold 70 tickets for $1000

1 is not sufficient. Let x = the number of $20 tickets sold by Tim and y = the number of $10 tickets sold by Billy. Then Billy sold 2x ($20 tickets) + y ($10 tickets) Tim sold x ($20 tickets) + 3y ($10 tickets) (2) implies 70 = x + 2x + y + 3y and 1000 = 20(x + 2x) + 10 (y + 3y)- divide this equation by 20 to simplify. Subtract these two equations 70 = 3x + 4y -50 = -3x - 2y 20 = 2y may be solved for x and y and subsequently y = 10 and x = 10, Billy sold 2(10) + 10 = 30 tickets. The trick here is that 1 is completely unnecessary and a distraction. The information in 1 may help answer the question, but it is unnecessary; 2 can do it alone. International students: A "red herring" is an American/English phrase for something that is a distraction to the issue. In this case, the first statement is a distraction. SUPER STATEMENT TRICK What is the average (arithmetic mean) of 3x and 12z? (1) x + 4z = 20 (2) x + z = 8

Yes, combining A and B will solve the question, but A can do it alone. The trap is C. Students will know that the two statements together can solve the question. SUPER STATEMENT questions involve questions where together both statements can solve a question, but carefully examined, one statement may solve it alone. The given information asks for the average of 3x and 12z, which is (3x + 12z) / 2, or 3(x + 4z)/2. Statement 1 tells us the value of x + 4z, (x + 4z)/3. So you can solve the average formula directly without using the second statement. x + 4z = 20, so 3x + 12z = 60, meaning that the average = 30. You may use statement 2 to solve the problem, but statement 1 can do it itself (thus disqualifying choice C, which

requires both 1 and 2 to be insufficient). HINT: on difficult Data Sufficiency questions, the statements usually have more value than it appears at first glance.

IV. More practice questions

Example 1 Is x > 4? 1) x squared = 9 2) x squared =25

Solution (1) implies that x = +/- 3 (+/- means positive or negative). Both +3 and -3 are less than 4, so the answer is "NO" and (1) is sufficient, that is NO, x is not greater than 4. A "NO" answer is equally acceptable as a "YES" answer. It is only necessary that there is sufficient information to answer the question. (2) implies x = positive or negative 5. -5 is less than 4 and + 5 is greater than 4, so the question cannot be answered with the information given in (2). The correct response is A.

Example 2 What is x - y? 1) x + y = 8 2) x - 2y = 2

Solution (1) is not sufficient since (x - y) is the quantity desired. Likewise, (2) is not sufficient. But (1) and (2) together provide us with 2 equations and two unknowns from which x - y can be determined. The correct response is C. (We may solve the problem by subtracting (2) from (1): 3y = 6, therefore y = 2 and x = 6, so that x - y = 6 - 2 = 4. This calculation is, however, unnecessary.)

Example 3 How old is Gloria?

1) Gloria's age is four times Alex's age plus Becky's age. 2) Becky was Alex's age fifteen years ago.

Solution (1) is obviously not sufficient as is (2). Can the question be answered with (1) and (2)? Let x be Gloria's age, y be Alex's age, and z be Becky's age. (1) states that x = 4y + z. (2) states that z - 15 = y. These two equations contain three unknowns; consequently, we cannot determine x. More information is needed and the correct response is E.

Example 4 A student group sold only donuts and GMAT books to raise funds. How many GMAT books were sold? 1) 30% of the 90 items sold were GMAT books. 2) 63 donuts were sold.

Solution (1) is sufficient since 30% of 90 is 0.3 x 90 = 27. (2) is not sufficient since we do not know the total number of items sold. So the correct response is A. A note of caution: Never let information in (1) influence your decision regarding the information in (2). In this example we cannot assume that 90 items were sold when deciding if (2) provides sufficient information. This is the Amnesia trick that undisciplined test takers will always fall into. Remember to look at each statement individually before comparing the two.

Knewton GMAT LSAT SAT EdTech Authors

Search blo Search

Common sense on GMAT Data Sufficiency

Rich is one of Knewtons expert GMAT prep teachers, and he loves thinking of ways to crack the Data Sufficiency section. Data Sufficiency questions are often difficult to get used to, because they require an adjustment in your approach to math problems. When you went through math classes growing up, the end goal was always Find the value of x or Find the area of this circle. You were asked to give hard responses to these questions, and nothing mattered more than finding a definite value. With Data Sufficiency, answering the question does not matter as much as the ability to answer the question. You are not primarily concerned with the final answer, but rather whether you have enough information to get you to that answer. For example, if youre asked to find the value of x, and a statement tells you that 300x + 257 = 1345, you know that this statement is sufficient, because you can perform arithmetic on that equation to isolate x. Are you going to perform it? No, because its too complicated and you dont need to! All youre concerned with is whether you can find the answer. It might strike you as odd, but because of this principle, you can tackle some supposedly difficult DS questions without writing down a single equation or calculation! Sounds too good to be true, but in actuality, it makes a lot of sense. Remember, in business school youll be given data in case studies, and youll be expected to determine relatively quickly what information is relevant. DS questions are perfect for testing this ability because you have to look at the information given to you and cut to the heart of what is most important about that information. As an example, lets look at this rather wordy DS problem: Martha bought an armchair and a coffee table at an auction and sold both items at her store. Her gross profit from the purchase and sale of the armchair was what percent greater than her gross profit from the purchase and sale of the coffee table? (1) Martha paid 10 percent more for the armchair than for the coffee table. (2) Martha sold the armchair for 20 percent more than she sold the coffee table. First, lets approach this algebraically to show how cumbersome it ends up being: In general, Gross Profit (P) is the Selling Price (S) minus the Buying Price (B): P=SB We want to know what percent greater the profit of the armchair (P_armchair) is than the profit of the coffeetable (P_coffeetable). If we represent the missing percent as x, then the equation would be P_coffeetable*(1 + x/100) = P_armchair

Rearranging, we would get: x = 100*(P_armchair / P_coffeetable 1) We know that P = S B, so we can substitute: x = 100*[(S_armchair - B_armchair)/ (S_coffeetable - B_coffeetable) - 1] Confused yet?? I sure am!! But try to look at things from a sufficiency point of view. Notice that you need absolute values for the gross profits in order to solve for x. You could also find the ratio between the two gross profits. Now that weve seen how ugly this looks when all the algebra is written out, lets take a more common-sense approach. The prompt: Martha bought an armchair and a coffee table at an auction and sold both items at her store. Her gross profit from the purchase and sale of the armchair was what percent greater than her gross profit from the purchase and sale of the coffee table? What we need in order to determine sufficiency: In essence, this question asks you to compare the values of two profits. You need the value of each profit OR the ratio between the two profits. Notice that you can figure out what information you will need without writing down a single number or algebraic expression. What each statement tells us: (1) Martha paid 10 percent more for the armchair than for the coffee table. Without writing any math, you can deduce that this is insufficient, because buying prices are mentioned, but no selling prices. And with no selling prices, we certainly cant determine anything about profit. (2) Martha sold the armchair for 20 percent more than she sold the coffee table. Now, weve got information about selling prices, but nothing about buying prices. Again, Insufficient because there is no way to determine profits. So far, nothing too difficult. Its pretty simple to narrow this down to C and E. But how do we determine whether the statements together are sufficient?

You could test numbers here, but really all you need to do is realize that the statements only give you percentages to work with. For the sake of illustration, lets pick numbers to see what this means: According to Statement 1, Marta could have spent $100 on the coffee table and $110 on the armchair, or it could have been $10 on the coffee table and $11 on the armchair. (Unlikely prices, maybe, but remember, the real world doesnt apply here!) There are infinite possibilities for what the buying prices could have been. Likewise, Statement 2 tells us that Martha could have sold the coffee table for $100 and the armchair for $120. Or it could have been $10 for the coffee table, $12 for the armchair. Youll notice that because the absolute numbers for selling and buying prices vary so much, so too do the gross profits! And if the gross profits can fluctuate that drastically, there is no way on Earth you can nail down one specific percentage increase from one profit to the next! And thus, without writing a single equation, you can determine that the answer must be E. Its very very tricky to get your mind to think this way, especially since youve been trained all your life to hack away at a problem until you come up with a definite answer. But it is absolutely imperative that you begin to look past the math of DS questions and ask yourself what information is necessary to solve the problem.

http://www.platinumgmat.com/practice_gmat_questions/data_sufficiency_questions