What is the remainder when positive integer x is divided by 6?

(1) When x is divided by 2, the remainder is 1 and when x is divided by 3 then the remainder is 0.

(2)When x is divided by 12, the remainder is 3.

The OA is D.

I just have one doubt. What if x is 3 according to statement 1 then how do you treat it ?

The source is GMAT-PREP.

as per y=qx+r rule, when u divide 3 by 6, the reminder is 3..

When you divide 3 by 6 you get a decimal/ Can you explain how x equals 3?
Thanks

if you divide a quantity by a larger quantity, then the integer quotient is 0, and the remainder is exactly the dividend (the smaller number) that you started with.
so, when you divide 3 by 6, the quotient is 0 and the remainder is 3.

although this will look weird at first, it should become obvious in the context of a word problem. first, a "normal" word problem, to set the tone:
what's the remainder when 17 is divided by 6? --> if you have 17 cans of beer and you're assembling complete six-packs, how many cans of beer will be left over?
answer: you'll have 5 (remainder) cans of beer left over, after making 2 (quotient) six-packs.
and now for the main event:
what's the remainder when 3 is divided by 6? --> if you have 3 cans of beer and you're assembling complete six-packs, how many cans of beer will be left over?
answer: you'll have 3 (remainder) cans of beer left over, after making 0 (quotient) six-packs.

--



when you divide a number by something that isn't a factor, you have to CHOOSE ONE INTERPRETATION: either a decimal / fractional part, or a remainder. you can't have it both ways. (remember that remainders were something that you conjured up in grade school because you had no idea what a fraction was yet.)

illustration:
12 divided by 5 = 2.4, or 2 2/5 (the interpretation with a fractional part)
12 divided by 5 = 2 with a remainder of 2 (notice that the remainder equals the numerator of the UNREDUCED fractional part).
you have to choose one of these interpretations; you can't say, for instance, that it's 2 2/5 with a remainder of 2. that would be not only redundant, but technically incorrect.