The following passage in you reasoning is NOT true:

"

**Now using the average returns, Leslie made 1.2***x* (20% return on *x* dollars) dollars whereas Kerri made 2.1*x* dollars (5% return on 2*x* dollars)."

You may read the first three paragraphs in the explanation, or try a new one:

The question statement implies that if Leslie had invested

*x* dollars then she had

*x* × (1 +

*n*/100) dollars at the end of the first year and

*x* × (1 +

*n*/100) × (1 +

*m*/100) dollars at the end of the second year.

*n*% is the first-year return

*m*% is the second-year return

Therefore the statement (1) tells us that (

*n* +

*m*)/2 = 20.

The question statement implies that if Leslie had invested

*x* dollars then Kerri had invested 2

*x* dollars. Kerrie had 2

*x* × (1 +

*a*/100) dollars at the end of the first year and 2

*x* × (1 +

*a*/100) × (1 +

*b*/100) dollars at the end of the second year.

*a*% is the first-year return

*b*% is the second-year return

Therefore the statement (1) tells us that (

*a* +

*b*)/2 = 5.

If

*x* = 100,

*m* =

*n* = 20 and

*a* = 10,

*b* = 0 then:

Leslie made 100 × (1 + 0.2) × (1 + 0.2) – 100 = 144 – 100 = 44 dollars.

Kerri made 200 × (1 + 0.1) × (1 + 0) – 200 = 220 – 200 = 20 dollars.

Therefore

**Leslie made more** than Kerri in this case.

PROFIT/LOSS diagram:

If

*x* = 100,

*n* = 80,

*m* = -40 and

*a* = 10,

*b* = 0 then:

Leslie made 100 × (1 + 0.8) × (1 – 0.4) – 100 = 108 – 100 = 8 dollars.

Kerri made 200 × (1 + 0.1) × (1 + 0) – 200 = 220 – 200 = 20 dollars.

Therefore

**Leslie made less** than Kerri in this case.

PROFIT/LOSS diagram:

So the both statements taken together are NOT sufficient to answer the question.