Manhattan GMAT Forums Forum Index

Reply to topic
Warehouse W
pbandyop
Guest


Reply with quote
Warehouse W's revenue from the sale of sofas was what percentage greater this year than it was last year?
1) Warehouse W sold 10% more sofas this year than last.
2) Warehouse W's selling price per sofa was $30 greater this year than last.

(1) seems sufficient to me, but the correct answer is E. Any explanation would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Re: Warehouse W
Ron Purewal
MGMAT STAFF

Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2200

Reply with quote
pbandyop wrote:
Warehouse W's revenue from the sale of sofas was what percentage greater this year than it was last year?
1) Warehouse W sold 10% more sofas this year than last.
2) Warehouse W's selling price per sofa was $30 greater this year than last.

(1) seems sufficient to me


nope.

it appears you're assuming that the price of the sofas is constant - a completely unfounded assumption. if you were guaranteed that the sofas were selling at the same price for which they sold last year, then (1) would mean the revenue was 10% greater ... but you have no such guarantee.

since you know nothing about the price at which the sofas sold this year vis-a-vis last year, you know nothing about the percent increase in revenue.

--

(2) doesn't help, either, because we have no information about the # of sofas sold (which is clearly a relevant concern).

--

together: still not good enough, because we don't have any value to which to compare $30. for instance, if the sofas were $50 last year and $80 this year, that's going to be a very large percent increase; if sofas were $1000 last year and $1030 this year, the percent increase will be very small.
Re: Warehouse W
Guest



Reply with quote
RPurewal wrote:
pbandyop wrote:
Warehouse W's revenue from the sale of sofas was what percentage greater this year than it was last year?
1) Warehouse W sold 10% more sofas this year than last.
2) Warehouse W's selling price per sofa was $30 greater this year than last.

(1) seems sufficient to me


nope.

it appears you're assuming that the price of the sofas is constant - a completely unfounded assumption. if you were guaranteed that the sofas were selling at the same price for which they sold last year, then (1) would mean the revenue was 10% greater ... but you have no such guarantee.

since you know nothing about the price at which the sofas sold this year vis-a-vis last year, you know nothing about the percent increase in revenue.

--

(2) doesn't help, either, because we have no information about the # of sofas sold (which is clearly a relevant concern).

--

together: still not good enough, because we don't have any value to which to compare $30. for instance, if the sofas were $50 last year and $80 this year, that's going to be a very large percent increase; if sofas were $1000 last year and $1030 this year, the percent increase will be very small.



What if we consider the # of sofas sold and their price to be 100 for the last year? Won't we be getting the required % ?
Re: Warehouse W
Ron Purewal
MGMAT STAFF

Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2200

Reply with quote
Anonymous wrote:
What if we consider the # of sofas sold and their price to be 100 for the last year? Won't we be getting the required % ?


you can only pick numbers when you don't lose any generality by doing so. in other words, if varying a quantity produces different answers to a question, then you absolutely cannot settle on one numerical value for that quantity.

in general, testing only 1 value for a quantity is almost always a HORRIBLE idea on data sufficiency problems. almost every data sufficiency problem relies on differences induced by changing the value of a quantity, and this one is no exception.

you should restrict single-number-picking to problem solving questions, on which the multiple choices guarantee that you aren't missing anything. on data sufficiency, you should try a variety of values and watch what happens to the quantities in the problem.

--

analogy:
what % of his original weight has dexter lost so far in 2008?
(1) dexter has lost 30 pounds so far in 2008.

here it should be fairly clear that (1) is insufficient; the higher the original weight, the lower the %.
you can't just declare that dexter originally weighed 100lbs and that he has therefore lost 30% of his weight; that would be absurd.
same reasoning applies to this problem.
Warehouse W
All times are GMT - 5 Hours  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic