BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Please help

Expert replies
by vinni.k » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:16 am
(1) y > 0
(2) x = y

Answer is C

My answer is B, but it is wrong.

My method:-

y^2 + 3 > y^2 (After plugging y for x)
Now, if I plug any value for y, whether it is positive or negative the y^2 + 3 > y^2 is true.

(-2)^2 + 3 > (-2)^2
4 + 3 > 4
7 > 4

Now putting positive value.
(2)^2 + 3 > (2)^2
4 + 3 > 4
7 > 4

I am not able to understand where is the problem. Even if i take fraction for y, then also i am concluding on the same terms.

Please help

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
Attachments
DS.JPG
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by kmittal82 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:57 am
I think this is where you are wrong:
y^2 + 3 > y^2

The inequality sign would change if y is negative, so you can't really say the above is true, unless you know for a fact that y > 0
Join the discussion

by neelgandham » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:50 am
Is 1/x > y/((y^2)+3)
(1) y > 0
Doesn't speak of y. *&**
(2) x = y
Is 1/x > y/((y^2)+3)
Is 1/y > y/((y^2)+3)
Is 1/y - y/((y^2)+3) > 0
Is (y^2)+3-(y^2)/(y*((y^2)+3)) > 0
Is 3/(y*((y^2)+3)) > 0 ?
(y^2)+3 > 0 , but for y can be > 0 or < 0, So we cannot, for certain, answer the question
From 1 and 2
We know that y > 0
So 3/(y*((y^2)+3)) > 0
Hence sufficient to answer the question.
Anil Gandham
Welcome to BEATtheGMAT | Photography | Getting Started | BTG Community rules | MBA Watch
Check out GMAT Prep Now's online course at https://www.gmatprepnow.com/
Join the discussion

by vinni.k » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:16 am
kmittal82 wrote:I think this is where you are wrong:
y^2 + 3 > y^2

The inequality sign would change if y is negative, so you can't really say the above is true, unless you know for a fact that y > 0
Thanks, but how can an inequality sign changes. Rules are if you multiply or divide an inequality by a negative number , then inequality sign changes. Here i am not multiplying a value by negative number. I am just plugging a negative value inside the square. I am not convinced by your explanation.

I liked the neelgandham's method, but I will really appreciate if someone can clear my doubt.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
Join the discussion

by krusta80 » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:29 am
vinni.k wrote:
kmittal82 wrote:I think this is where you are wrong:
y^2 + 3 > y^2

The inequality sign would change if y is negative, so you can't really say the above is true, unless you know for a fact that y > 0
Thanks, but how can an inequality sign changes. Rules are if you multiply or divide an inequality by a negative number , then inequality sign changes. Here i am not multiplying a value by negative number. I am just plugging a negative value inside the square. I am not convinced by your explanation.

I liked the neelgandham's method, but I will really appreciate if someone can clear my doubt.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
kmittal82 is referring to when you cross-multiplied. You ALWAYS need to consider the possible signs of the denominators when cross multiplying inequalities, because in essence you are multiplying both sides by the denominators when you cross multiply.

Now, let's look at the denominators...

y^2+3 will always be positive, but...

Since x can be negative or positive in part (2) alone, you need to consider both cases. So, in essence, x is the negative number that kmittal is referring to.
Join the discussion

by kmittal82 » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:41 am
krusta80 wrote:
vinni.k wrote:
kmittal82 wrote:I think this is where you are wrong:
y^2 + 3 > y^2

The inequality sign would change if y is negative, so you can't really say the above is true, unless you know for a fact that y > 0
Thanks, but how can an inequality sign changes. Rules are if you multiply or divide an inequality by a negative number , then inequality sign changes. Here i am not multiplying a value by negative number. I am just plugging a negative value inside the square. I am not convinced by your explanation.

I liked the neelgandham's method, but I will really appreciate if someone can clear my doubt.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
kmittal82 is referring to when you cross-multiplied. You ALWAYS need to consider the possible signs of the denominators when cross multiplying inequalities, because in essence you are multiplying both sides by the denominators when you cross multiply.

Now, let's look at the denominators...

y^2+3 will always be positive, but...

Since x can be negative or positive in part (2) alone, you need to consider both cases. So, in essence, x is the negative number that kmittal is referring to.
thanks for clarifying on my behalf krutsa, couldn't have explained it better myself :)
Join the discussion