![]() |
| Warehouse W |
| Re: Warehouse W |
|
Ron Purewal
MGMAT STAFF
|
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
|
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
|
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 |
|
||
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Content © Manhattan GMAT Forums
*GMAT and GMAT CAT are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council,
which neither sponsors nor endorses this test preparation service.
Content © Manhattan GMAT Forums
*GMAT and GMAT CAT are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council,
which neither sponsors nor endorses this test preparation service.


