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

Redeem

Algebra - Ratios

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3835
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 1854 times
Followed by:523 members
GMAT Score:770

by Anurag@Gurome » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:15 pm
anirudhbhalotia wrote:If r> 0 and s>0, is r/s < s/r ?

1. r/3s = 1/4
2. s = r + 4
Statement 1: (r/3s) = 1/4
Implies, (r/s) = 3/4 => (s/r) = 4/3
Hence, (r/s) < (s/r)

Sufficient

Statement 2: s = (r + 4)
Dividing both side by r, (s/r) = 1 + (4/r) > 1
And dividing both side by s, 1 = (r/s) + (4/s) => (r/s) = 1 - (4/s) < 1

Hence (r/s) < (s/r)

Sufficient

The correct answer is D.
Anurag Mairal, Ph.D., MBA
GMAT Expert, Admissions and Career Guidance
Gurome, Inc.
1-800-566-4043 (USA)

Join Our Facebook Groups
GMAT with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/272466352793633/
Admissions with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/461459690536574/
Career Advising with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/360435787349781/
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:12 am
Location: Dominican Republic
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:480

by MAAJ » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:11 am
For the second statement you can also do this:

(r/s) < (s/r) ?

Because they are both positive, you can cross-multiply

r²< s² ?

Statement 2 tell us that s= r+4 so:

r² < (r+4)² ?

Because "r" is a positive number, r² will always by less than (r+4)², making this statement sufficient.
"There's a difference between interest and commitment. When you're interested in doing something, you do it only when circumstance permit. When you're committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results."
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by anirudhbhalotia » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:10 am
MAAJ wrote:For the second statement you can also do this:

(r/s) < (s/r) ?

Because they are both positive, you can cross-multiply

r²< s² ?

Statement 2 tell us that s= r+4 so:

r² < (r+4)² ?

Because "r" is a positive number, r² will always by less than (r+4)², making this statement sufficient.
Cool!

Was a bit confused as to how did Anurag suffice the 2nd statement!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: Varanasi
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:3 members

by ankur.agrawal » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:00 am
MAAJ wrote:For the second statement you can also do this:

(r/s) < (s/r) ?

Because they are both positive, you can cross-multiply

r²< s² ?

Statement 2 tell us that s= r+4 so:

r² < (r+4)² ?

Because "r" is a positive number, r² will always by less than (r+4)², making this statement sufficient.

For the statement 2 we can do this:

s=r+4: putting this value:

r/r+4<r+4/r. From this it is clear that LHS will be <1 & RHS will be >1.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:32 am
Location: India
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:550

by vikrambansal » Mon May 18, 2015 5:28 pm
Can we simplify r/s < s/r

= r^2 < s^2 (cross multiply. No change in inequality as both r & s are +ve)

= r < s (taking square root)
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
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

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Mon May 18, 2015 5:41 pm
vikrambansal wrote:Can we simplify r/s < s/r

= r^2 < s^2 (cross multiply. No change in inequality as both r & s are +ve)

= r < s (taking square root)
Perfect!
The KEY is that r and s are both POSITIVE

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1