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
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
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.

Absolute value

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

C

by bbaah » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:30 am
|x| < 1?

(1) |x+1| = 2|x-1|

|a| = a (if a >=0)

|a| = -a (if a<0)

Therefore,

Either x+1 = 2(x-1)
=> x=3

Or

x+1 = -2(x-1)
x+1 = -2x +2
x=1/3

Not Sufficient

(2) |x-3| != 0

If we set |x-3| = 3, we get x = 6, 0

Not Sufficient


Combining both statements

(1) => x = 3, or 1/3
(2) This statement eliminates the possibility that x = 3, leaving us with x = 1/3

Therefore |x| < 1

Sufficient

C.
Join the discussion

by beater » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:06 am
Hi bbaah - what promted you to do this step:

'If we set |x-3| = 3, we get x = 6, 0'

Anyone with a different approach to this problem?

Thanks!
Join the discussion

x = 6, 0

by bbaah » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:22 am
I was just trying to find a situation in which statement given will yield different results. If we can find such a situation, then the question cannot be answered on the basis of the information given.

Since we were only told that |x-3| !=0, we can set |x-3| = any non zero number. I picked 3 because I realized numbers >=3 will yield different results. Try |x-3| = 4,5,6...
Join the discussion

by beater » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:11 am
Thanks bbah.

Anyone with a different approach?
Join the discussion

Re: Absolute value

by Morgoth » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:49 pm
beater wrote:Is |x|< 1?
(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
(2) |x - 3| &#8800; 0
Statement (1)

CaseI
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
-x - 1 = -2x + 2
2x - x = 2+1
x=3

CaseII
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
x+1 = 2x - 2
3 = x
x = 3

CaseIII
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
x+1 = -2x + 2
x=1/3

CaseIV
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
-x-1 = 2x-2
x=1/3

therefore x=3 or 1/3. Insufficient.

Statement (2)
|x - 3| &#8800; 0
This simply implies x cannot be 3.

Combining (1) & (2)
x=1/3. Sufficient.

Thus C is the answer.

This is a very long method, which I wouldnt recommend on the actual test, since it is not only very time consuming but also risky in terms of silly mistakes.

Try and go through Ian's posts. He has a very good number line approach for solving questions like this one.

Hope this helps.
Join the discussion

Re: Absolute value

by nitin86 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:32 pm
Morgoth wrote:
beater wrote:Is |x|< 1?
(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
(2) |x - 3| &#8800; 0
Statement (1)

CaseI
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
-x - 1 = -2x + 2
2x - x = 2+1
x=3

CaseII
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
x+1 = 2x - 2
3 = x
x = 3

CaseIII
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
x+1 = -2x + 2
x=1/3

CaseIV
|x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
-x-1 = 2x-2
x=1/3

therefore x=3 or 1/3. Insufficient.

Statement (2)
|x - 3| &#8800; 0
This simply implies x cannot be 3.

Combining (1) & (2)
x=1/3. Sufficient.

Thus C is the answer.

This is a very long method, which I wouldnt recommend on the actual test, since it is not only very time consuming but also risky in terms of silly mistakes.

Try and go through Ian's posts. He has a very good number line approach for solving questions like this one.

Hope this helps.
CASE IV is not valid. This situation will never arrive since the range of value of x can be in this case.

x > 1
-1 < x < 1
x < -1

so, for case IV it cannot be that |x+1| => - (x+1) and 2|x-1| => 2(x-1), because if x < -1, then 2|x-1| => -2(x-1)
Join the discussion

Re: Absolute value

by Morgoth » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:36 pm
nitin86 wrote: CASE IV is not valid. This situation will never arrive since the range of value of x can be in this case.

x > 1
-1 < x < 1
x < -1

so, for case IV it cannot be that |x+1| => - (x+1) and 2|x-1| => 2(x-1), because if x < -1, then 2|x-1| => -2(x-1)
Agreed! nice spot.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

Re: Absolute value

by hgupta0 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:09 pm
Can somebody confirm what the answer is for this?

Given the cases, it seems that x cannot be greater than -1 and cannot be less than 1. Hence, C? That is NO?

Thanks in advance.
Morgoth wrote:
nitin86 wrote: CASE IV is not valid. This situation will never arrive since the range of value of x can be in this case.

x > 1
-1 < x < 1
x < -1

so, for case IV it cannot be that |x+1| => - (x+1) and 2|x-1| => 2(x-1), because if x < -1, then 2|x-1| => -2(x-1)
Agreed! nice spot.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by cramya » Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:59 pm
The answer is C). There's also a duplicate post for this.
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:09 am
statement (1)
for EQUATIONS involving absolute value, like this one, the key realization is that the absolute value of a quantity can signify either the quantity itself or the opposite of the quantity. therefore, if you try each of the sign combinations (pos/neg) of the absolute values in the problem, you'll be guaranteed to find all of the solutions.
(note: in what follows, "+" means leaving the expression within the absolute value bars alone; "-" means reversing the sign of that expression)
in this equation, there are ostensibly four sign combinations, +/+, +/-, -/+, -/-, but it's only necessary to try two of them:
** first, either +/+ or -/-, in which both or neither of the absolute value expressions are flipped. may as well go with +/+ (i.e., leaving both of the absolute value expressions alone while removing the bars): x + 1 = 2(x - 1), or x = 3. plugging this back into the original equation shows that it works.
** second, either +/- or -/+, in which one of the absolute value expressions is flipped. let's go (at random) with flipping the first one: -x - 1 = 2(x - 1), or x = 1/3. plugging this into the original equation also shows that it works.

therefore, statement 1 means that x = 3 or x = 1/3.

--

statement (2)

two ways to interpret absolute value inequalities like this one:
** memorize the template of the solution (preferred for efficiency's sake): you should just know that |expression| > a means "either expression > a or expression < -a".
** conceptualize absolute value as distance: in this case, |x - 3| means the distance between x and 3. therefore, this statement means that the distance between x and 3 is greater than 0 (in either direction).
either of these interpretations means that x < 3 or x > 3, or, equivalently, x is not equal to 3.

statement 1 is insufficient, because 1/3 gives a "yes" and 3 gives a "no". statement 2 is also insufficient, because every number except 3 is possible. taken together, though, the two statements are sufficient because they yield a unique value, 1/3, for x.
notice that there's no reason even to figure out whether 1/3 gives "yes" or "no" at this point; it's one value, meaning that it is guaranteed to be sufficient no matter what the answer.

answer = c
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion