WTF! Leverage Your Assets on These GMAT Questions

When preparing to take the GMAT, you often solve hundreds or even thousands of practice problems. As you solve more and more of them, you start to realize that almost every question is testing something specific. There’s a geometry question about right angle triangles that’s really all about Pythagoras’ theorem, and an algebra problem that is easy to solve if you expand the difference of squares. However, there are some questions that make you scratch your head and wonder: “What in the world?” Some questions make you think you missed a section of material that you need to review (are there triple integrals on the GMAT?), or at the very least that you don’t know the correct strategic approach. I will euphemistically call these “WTF” questions, which of course stands for “Want To Finish”.

On questions where the entire goal of the question remains a mystery even as you try and come to a conclusion, the best strategy is to leverage all the information provided to you. As an example, if the question asks you about a specific property of an odd number, then try plugging in a few odd numbers to see what’s going on. You can then plug in a few even numbers to contrast the two; this often sheds some light on why only odd figures were selected in the premise. Exploiting seemingly inconsequential hints like these might be the difference between getting the right answer and wasting copious amounts of time on a single question, so look for hints in the set up.

Another important thing to remember is that you are just looking for a single answer choice. On the GMAT, there are no part marks for development, and a single incorrect calculation can sink an otherwise flawless algorithm. So you’re going for the correct answer more than a perfect understanding of what the question is testing. Understanding the question generally leads to a correct answer, but stumbling on the correct choice is worth exactly the same number of points on the GMAT (The Maxwell Smart approach). This also means that eliminating incorrect answer choices is valuable, as worst case you can take an educated guess that’s 50/50 instead of one out of five.

Let’s look at one of these WTF (Want To Finish) questions and see if we can figure out a solution:

If x and y are both prime, is x*y = 323?
(1) x is the first prime number after 18
(2) y is the last prime number before 180

(A) Statement 1 alone is sufficient but statement 2 alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
(B) Statement 2 alone is sufficient but statement 1 alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
(C) Both statements 1 and 2 together are sufficient to answer the question but neither statement is sufficient alone.
(D) Each statement alone is sufficient to answer the question.
(E) Statements 1 and 2 are not sufficient to answer the question asked and additional data is needed to answer the statements.

So the first thing that came to my mind is “Wow, that’s random”. The premise seems so arbitrary that it makes many approaches seem irrelevant. Even knowing that the two numbers are prime, we cannot quickly determine whether they must multiply to 323 without some more analysis and manipulation. Luckily, this is a Data Sufficiency question, so we have two additional statements that can help guide our analysis.

It’s important to note that in Data Sufficiency, we are trying to determine whether we can say with certainty that the two numbers multiply together to 323. This also means that if we can determine with certainty that the two numbers cannot multiply to 323, we have sufficient data. The uncertainty arises when we don’t know either way (i.e. maybe), so that provides a good framework for our analysis.

The first statement gives us a big hint, telling us that x is the first prime number after 18. This very quickly implies that x must be 19. We now have a hint as to why the number 323 was chosen (perhaps the author drove a Mazda in the ‘90s). If 323 is not a multiple of 19, then statement 1 will provide definitive evidence that x*y cannot possibly equal 323. Short of using a calculator, we can find multiples of 19 that are nearby and iterate manually until we find the correct answer. 19 x 20 would be easy to calculate as we can consider it as 19 x 2 x 10, or 38 x 10, or 380. From there, we can drop 19s until we get in the correct range.
380 – 19 is 361
361 – 19 is 342
342 – 19 is 323

You might be able to get there faster than by using this strategy, but after a few seconds of calculations, you can determine that 19 * 17 yields exactly 323. The question indicated that x and y would both be prime numbers, and 17 is indeed a prime number, so the possibility exists. However, it’s important to note that we know nothing (John Snow) about the value of y, other than it is a prime number. It could just as easily be 2, or 7, or 30203 (yes that’s a prime; I like palindromes). Since y could have any prime value, there’s insufficient evidence to determine that the product of x and y must be 323. Statement 1 is insufficient, and we can eliminate answer choices A and D.

Statement 2 indicates that y is the last prime number before 180, but it is important to remember that we must evaluate this statement alone. We now have no information about the value of x, other than it is a prime number. Statement 2 gives us a specific value of y, even if we’re not exactly sure what it is. We could do a little math and check to see if 179 (the number right before 180) is a prime, and in this case it is. The verification process is somewhat tedious, you have to check to see if it’s divisible by any prime number smaller than the square root of the number, so once you check 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13, you’re confident than 179 is a prime number.

Knowing only that x is a prime number, we must now try and determine whether 179 and any prime could yield a product of 323, and the answer is very quickly no. The smallest prime number is 2, and 179 * 2 is already 358. You can also visually determine that 179 is more than half of 323, so there’s no need to even formally calculate the result. This statement on its own guarantees that x * y can never be 323, and thus is sufficient information to answer the question. The correct selection is answer choice B, as this statement alone is sufficient.

It is important to point out that these statements, taken together, give very clear numbers for both x and y. When this happens, you know that you can combine the statements and get only one value. That value may or may not be 323 (in this case it’s really, really not), but either way it provides sufficient information to definitively answer the question. However, it is almost always going to be the wrong answer, as it simply provides too much information. There’s no mystery or intrigue left, everything is laid out on the sheet in front of you. In business, as in life, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Indeed, this question is essentially testing to see whether you’ll overpay for information on Data Sufficiency. However, at first blush, it just seems like an arbitrary collection of numbers with a question attached. When faced with similar head-scratchers, keep in mind that the statements (and/or answer choices) will provide hints. Trying to factor out 323 without any hints is a challenging endeavour, so look for hints and exploit them as much as possible. Hopefully, on test day, the only head scratching you’ll do is wondering which school you’ll go to with your outstanding score.

Plan on taking the GMAT soon? We have GMAT prep courses starting all the time. And, be sure to find us on Facebook and Google+, and follow us on Twitter!

Ron Awad is a GMAT instructor for Veritas Prep based in Montreal, bringing you weekly advice for success on your exam.  After graduating from McGill and receiving his MBA from Concordia, Ron started teaching GMAT prep and his Veritas Prep students have given him rave reviews ever since.