Answer: AIs (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
(1) (y - 2x)/x < 0
(2) y - 2x > 0
Is (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Here's a practice question I just created. I'd say the difficulty level is in the 600 to 700 range.
- DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
Brent original!Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:Here's a practice question I just created. I'd say the difficulty level is in the 600 to 700 range.
Answer: AIs (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
(1) (y - 2x)/x < 0
(2) y - 2x > 0
It's worth taking a moment to consider the characteristics of a fraction that is greater than 1. Take two simple examples.
Case A: 4/3; In this case the numerator and denominator are both positive and the numerator is larger than the denominator.
Case B: (-4)/(-3); In this case the numerator and denominator are both negative and the numerator is smaller than the denominator.
So when we're asked if a fraction is greater than 1, there are two relevant questions: are numerator and denominator both + or -? And do we know which is larger?
Statement 2 we can evaluate quickly. It tells us that the denominator of the fraction (y - 2x) is negative, but it tells us nothing about the numerator (y - 3x.) Alone this is not sufficient.
Statement 1, (y - 2x)/x <0, is interesting. If a fraction is negative, either the numerator is positive and the denominator is negative, or vice versa. So let's examine both scenarios.
It could be the case that y - 2x > 0 and x < 0. If we multiply the second inequality by (-1), it will become - x > 0, and we can add them.
y - 2x > 0
-x > 0
y - 3x > 0. Interesting. In this scenario we see that the numerator (y - 3x) and the denominator (y - 2x) are both positive. Moreover, if x is negative, y - 3x will be greater than y - 2x, as we'll be subtracting a negative, the functional equivalent of adding a positive. This gives us the aforementioned Case A, yielding a YES to the question.
Alternatively, it could be the case that y - 2x < 0 and x > 0. If we multiply the second inequality by (-1), it will become - x < 0, and we can add them.
y - 2x < 0
-x < 0
y - 3x < 0. In this scenario we see that the numerator (y - 3x) and the denominator (y - 2x) are both negative. Moreover, if x is positive, y - 3x will be smaller than y - 2x, as we'll be subtracting a positive. This gives us the aforementioned Case B, again yielding a YES to the question.
Because the answer will always be YES, statement 1 alone is sufficient to answer the question. The correct answer is A
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
(y-3x)/(y-2x) > 1Is (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
(1) (y - 2x)/x < 0
(2) y - 2x > 0
(y-3x)/(y-2x) - 1 > 0
[(y-3x)/(y-2x)] - [(y-2x)/(y-2x)] > 0
-x/(y-2x) > 0
x/(y-2x) < 0.
The left side will be negative only if x and (y-2x) have DIFFERENT SIGNS.
Questions stem, rephrased:
Do x and (y-2x) have different signs?
Statement 1: (y-2x)/x < 0
Thus, x and (y-2x) have different signs.
SUFFICIENT.
Statement 2: y-2x > 0
No information about x.
INSUFFICIENT.
The correct answer is A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
David's solution is great - it uses some nice number sense.Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:
Is (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
(1) (y - 2x)/x < 0
(2) y - 2x > 0
Another approach is the spend a little time at the beginning to rephrase the target question.
Target question: Is (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1?
We can use a nice property of fractions to simplify this target question.
The property is (a + b)/c = a/c + b/c.
We can also write: (a - b)/c = a/c - b/c
Given: (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1
Rewrite numerator as: (y - 2x - x)/(y - 2x) > 1
Apply fraction property to get: (y - 2x)/(y - 2x) - x/(y - 2x) > 1
Simplify: 1 - x/(y - 2x) > 1
Subtract 1 from both sides: -x/(y - 2x) > 0
Add -x/(y - 2x) to both side to get: 0 > x/(y - 2x)
Great, we've taken the inequality (y - 3x)/(y - 2x) > 1 and rewritten it as x/(y - 2x) < 0
REPHRASED target question: Is x/(y - 2x) < 0?
With this easier (REPHRASED) target question, it will be very easy to handle the statement...
Statement 1: (y - 2x)/x < 0
PERFECT!
If (y - 2x)/x is negative, then the reciprocal, x/(y - 2x) must also be negative.
In other words, we can be certain that x/(y - 2x) < 0
Since we can answer the REPHRASED target question with certainty, statement 1 is SUFFICIENT
Statement 2: y - 2x > 0
This tells us that the DENOMINATOR in x/(y - 2x) is positive, but we don't know anything about the numerator x.
So, we can't determine whether or not x/(y - 2x) < 0
Since we cannot answer the REPHRASED target question with certainty, statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT
Answer = A
RELATED VIDEO:
Rephrasing the target question: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... cy?id=1100
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:5 members
Dear Brent,Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:
Statement 2: y - 2x > 0
This tells us that the DENOMINATOR in x/(y - 2x) is positive, but we don't know anything about the numerator x.
So, we can't determine whether or not x/(y - 2x) < 0
Since we cannot answer the REPHRASED target question with certainty, statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT
Answer = A
I have question about statement 2 specifically.
y - 2x > 0...... y>2x
Let assume y= 2.1x
Applying in question.... -0.9x/0.1x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
Let assume y= 4x
Applying in question.... x/2x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
Let assume y= 6x
Applying in question.... 3x/4x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
So it always No. it should be sufficient.
Where did I go wrong??
Thanks for you help.
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Your conclusion that y > 2x is correct.Mo2men wrote:
Dear Brent,
I have question about statement 2 specifically.
y - 2x > 0...... y>2x
Let assume y= 2.1x
Applying in question.... -0.9x/0.1x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
Let assume y= 4x
Applying in question.... x/2x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
Let assume y= 6x
Applying in question.... 3x/4x > 1..........As long as x can't be zero so X could be eliminated. Answer to question is NO
So it always No. it should be sufficient.
Where did I go wrong??
Thanks for you help.
However, we can't then conclude that y = 2.1x, because this does not account for negative values of x.
For example, if x = -1, then 2x = -2 and y = -2.1.
In this case, is it not the case that y > 2x
Does that help?
Cheers,
Brent
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:5 members
Thanks Brent.Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote: Your conclusion that y > 2x is correct.
However, we can't then conclude that y = 2.1x, because this does not account for negative values of x.
For example, if x = -1, then 2x = -2 and y = -2.1.
In this case, is it not the case that y > 2x
Does that help?
Cheers,
Brent
Other general question please. If I have the following:
Can I safely that 3x/2x >1,as long as X is not equal zero so that I can eliminate X???
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Yes, if you're told that 3x/2x > 1, then you can be certain that x ≠0, which means you can simplify 3x/2x to be 3/2Mo2men wrote:
Thanks Brent.
Other general question please. If I have the following:
Can I safely that 3x/2x >1,as long as X is not equal zero so that I can eliminate X???
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:5 members
Thanks Brent,Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:Yes, if you're told that 3x/2x > 1, then you can be certain that x ≠0, which means you can simplify 3x/2x to be 3/2Mo2men wrote:
Thanks Brent.
Other general question please. If I have the following:
Can I safely that 3x/2x >1,as long as X is not equal zero so that I can eliminate X???
I did not phrased my question correctly.
We are not told that 3x/2x >1. Instead, we want to conclude if 3x/2x >1. So my question still the same. Can I eliminate X in that case?
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
If you can be guaranteed that x does not equal zero, then 3x/2x = 3/2, so we can be certain that 3x/2x > 1Mo2men wrote:Thanks Brent,Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:Yes, if you're told that 3x/2x > 1, then you can be certain that x ≠0, which means you can simplify 3x/2x to be 3/2Mo2men wrote:
Thanks Brent.
Other general question please. If I have the following:
Can I safely that 3x/2x >1,as long as X is not equal zero so that I can eliminate X???
I did not phrased my question correctly.
We are not told that 3x/2x >1. Instead, we want to conclude if 3x/2x >1. So my question still the same. Can I eliminate X in that case?
Cheers,
Brent
-
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2630
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:32 pm
- Location: East Bay all the way
- Thanked: 625 times
- Followed by:119 members
- GMAT Score:780
If x were 0 it wouldn't be in the denominator of a fraction anyway, since you'd be dividing by 2x, or by 2*0.Mo2men wrote: We are not told that 3x/2x >1. Instead, we want to conclude if 3x/2x >1. So my question still the same. Can I eliminate X in that case?
This is one reason you want to be very careful dividing any equation by an unknown. If x = 0, your division will merrily play along, but your equation might break! Here's a famous example.
Let's say a = b. From there, we can multiply both sides by a:
a² = ab
then add a² to both sides:
a² + a² = a² + ab
then subtract 2ab from both sides:
2a² - 2ab = a² - ab
then factor out:
2a * (a - b) = a * (a - b)
then divide both sides by a * (a - b):
2 = 1
Wow! Alert the Nobel Committee, I've made a discovery that will destroy math as we know it.
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
And that's how Matt created the rift in the space-time continuum!Matt@VeritasPrep wrote: .
.
.
then divide both sides by a * (a - b):
2 = 1
Plus, I have to go back and edit ALL of my posts to reflect this new discovery!