That is definitely correct. In fact, doing it that way is far faster (it’s also the way I’d do it :)).

At the same time, when we offer up an explanation, sometimes the algebraic method is a safe way of solving problems, because it shows each steps clearly.

Anyhow, keep using your method, because it shows you are picking up on the patterns, and that is exactly what the GRE is looking for!

Magoosh blog comment policy: To create the best experience for our readers, we will only approve comments that are relevant to the article, general enough to be helpful to other students, concise, and well-written! 😄 Due to the high volume of comments across all of our blogs, we cannot promise that all comments will receive responses from our instructors.

We highly encourage students to help each other out and respond to other students' comments if you can!

If you are a Premium Magoosh student and would like more personalized service from our instructors, you can use the Help tab on the Magoosh dashboard. Thanks!

Hello,

For the above question I wanted to ask if it’s okay to bring the negative exponents to the denominator in the first step, ie:

[1/(3)(2^n)] x [1/(2)(3^n)]

Then in the denominator, for the numbers w/o the exponent since 3×2 = 6, we need 6 x # = 36. So n has to equal 1.

Is that correct?

Hi Arpita,

That is definitely correct. In fact, doing it that way is far faster (it’s also the way I’d do it :)).

At the same time, when we offer up an explanation, sometimes the algebraic method is a safe way of solving problems, because it shows each steps clearly.

Anyhow, keep using your method, because it shows you are picking up on the patterns, and that is exactly what the GRE is looking for!