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 Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

Combining inequalities - Adding inequalities

Expert replies
by gmatrant » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:09 pm
I was reading the Manhattan "Equations and Inequalities" book where in it stated that if two inequalities are given
i) a > b
ii) c > d

the we can combine the two inequalities to state positively that a+c > b+d.

But this does not hold true with the below problem

Example DS problem

Is p+q > r+s ?
i) p > r+s
ii) q > r+s

Now this is true as long as p, q are positive values.
If p is -4 , r is -3 , s is -3 then p > r+s
If q is -5 r is -3 , s is -3 then q > r+s
Combining the inequality
p+q > 2(r+s) so it means but p+q is greater than (r+s) as well but
with the above values p+q < r+s since p+q = -9 and r+s =-6.

Can experts please help as to when can inequalities be combined to conclude a solution and when we cannot combine.

OA is E
A kudos or thanks would do great if my answer has helped you :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by krusta80 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:56 pm
gmatrant wrote:I was reading the Manhattan "Equations and Inequalities" book where in it stated that if two inequalities are given
i) a > b
ii) c > d

the we can combine the two inequalities to state positively that a+c > b+d.

But this does not hold true with the below problem

Example DS problem

Is p+q > r+s ?
i) p > r+s
ii) q > r+s

Now this is true as long as p, q are positive values.
If p is -4 , r is -3 , s is -3 then p > r+s
If q is -5 r is -3 , s is -3 then q > r+s
Combining the inequality
p+q > 2(r+s) so it means but p+q is greater than (r+s) as well but
with the above values p+q < r+s since p+q = -9 and r+s =-6.

Can experts please help as to when can inequalities be combined to conclude a solution and when we cannot combine.

OA is E
You're making the assumption that 2*(r+s) HAS to be greater than (r+s) regardless of the value of r+s, but this is only true when r+s is positive.

As you state in your post, p+q > 2(r+s) as per the book, but is it NOT greater than r+s, which is not implied by the book in any way.
Join the discussion

by pemdas » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:09 pm
he's not making any *assumptions* :)
he simply forgot to add r+s from the right hand side of the first inequality to the right hand side of the second inequality. Together they will make r+s + r+s and translated into his example -3-3 -3-3=-12 and this will hold true for -9>-12 always. So one can safely combine the inequalities provided the sign is the same.
Success doesn't come overnight!
Join the discussion

by krusta80 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:11 pm
pemdas wrote:he's not making any *assumptions* :)
he simply forgot to add r+s from the right hand side of the first inequality to the right hand side of the second inequality. Together they will make r+s + r+s and translated into his example -3-3 -3-3=-12 and this will hold true for -9>-12 always. So one can safely combine the inequalities provided the sign is the same.
Perhaps you're right...a big tough to follow his train of thought to be honest. :)
Join the discussion

by gmatrant » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:38 pm
pemdas wrote:he's not making any *assumptions* :)
he simply forgot to add r+s from the right hand side of the first inequality to the right hand side of the second inequality. Together they will make r+s + r+s and translated into his example -3-3 -3-3=-12 and this will hold true for -9>-12 always. So one can safely combine the inequalities provided the sign is the same.
pemdas,

You state that "one can safely combine the inequalities provided the sign is the same" . But I don's see this condition specified in Manhattan's book. They just state that we can combine (add) inequalities. One needs to be guarded with inequalities only while multiplying or dividing by a variable whose sign is not known.
A kudos or thanks would do great if my answer has helped you :)
Join the discussion

.

by pemdas » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:20 am
you need to review thoroughly inequality theory
there also reciprocals and sign flips
turn to gmat-club's math book, it's online and free i guess

-----------------
here, i've just attached the book in pdf format and check their web-site at https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-math-book-87417.html for improvements and GMAT examples. good luck on your cracking math section

cheers
pemdas@BTG
Attachments
GMAT Club Math Book_09-Oct-2010.pdf
(1.94 MiB) Downloaded 121 times
Success doesn't come overnight!
Join the discussion

by Mike@Magoosh » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:46 pm
I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion.

Just to be clear, if you know a > b and c > d, then 100% of the time, it follows that a + c > b + d, regardless of which values are positive/negative, fractions/integers, etc. If a, b, c, and d are any four real numbers, the expressions a > b and c > d lead directly and ineluctably to a + c > b + d, as well as to a - c > b - d. We can't multiply and divide without +/- sign information, but we can add and subtract all we want.

It's true, that we can't generalize any rule about u vs. 2*u ---- if we know u > 0, then 2u > u, but if we know u < 0, then 2u < u. That is, essentially, what krusta80 pointed out in the second post of this thread.

Further down in the thread, gmatrant said of the MGMAT books: "They just state that we can combine (add) inequalities. One needs to be guarded with inequalities only while multiplying or dividing by a variable whose sign is not known." This is 100% correct. Adding and subtracting inequalities proceeds problem-free, despite a dearth of knowledge about positive/negative signs of terms. Despite my friend pemdas' chastisement, I don't believe gmatrant's understanding of inequalities is lacking in any way.

I just want to make sure we are all on the same page with these concepts. Here's a somewhat germane DS question for practice:

https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/980

When you submit your answer to that question, it will be followed by a complete video explanation.

Please let me know if anyone reading this has any question about anything I have said.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Join the discussion

by pemdas » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:09 am
i meant sign of inequality not +/-
Success doesn't come overnight!
Join the discussion

by gmatrant » Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Mike - Thanks for the explanation . Makes it very clear now.

Pemdas - Thanks for the pdf.
A kudos or thanks would do great if my answer has helped you :)
Join the discussion