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.

confusing inequation

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Re: confusing inequation

by gabriel » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:06 pm
magical cook wrote:Is r > -1?

(1) r > -5
(2) r <16

Can you possibly explain the differences between the question?
Well for starters the first one is a DS question and the second one is a PS question :P .. anyway i was for some reason not able to post my whole reply so am attaching it to this post .. go thru it and let me know if you have any doubts ...
Attachments
Inequality.doc
(26.5 KiB) Downloaded 108 times
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:27 pm
:?
Attachments
Thanks Gabriel.doc
(24 KiB) Downloaded 76 times
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:00 am
Dont worry about it , your earlier understanding of the concept is correct, the answer to the second question is E and not D, if the OA says D it is wrong ...
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:35 am
hmm..but I think the answer for the second question should be correct because it's in OG10..... :?
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:58 am
magical cook wrote:hmm..but I think the answer for the second question should be correct because it's in OG10..... :?
Oh well .. the answer is D :) ... When x is between -3 and 5 then obviously x is > -5 ... I am really sorry about this .. I totally misread the question .. I blame the extra sugar intake (you know it being diwali and all) ...

PS:- for my Non- Indian friends Diwali is the biggest festival in India ..
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:07 am
Thanks gabriel for confirmation....


So, can I assume that when X is closed (meaning like -3<x<5), as long as X is "covered" it's ok....

BUT when X is NOT closed (like X<-3) we can not just assume that X<-5 covers because X could be -4.....


extra suger intake....I though you are talking about CHAI tea... :wink:
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:33 am
magical cook wrote:Thanks gabriel for confirmation....


So, can I assume that when X is closed (meaning like -3<x<5), as long as X is "covered" it's ok....

BUT when X is NOT closed (like X<-3) we can not just assume that X<-5 covers because X could be -4.....


extra suger intake....I though you are talking about CHAI tea... :wink:
hmm .. seems like we know a bit of hindi .. so i guess we will be communicating in Hindi henceforth :D ..

Well about ur question ... Remember in the question x has been defined in the range -3<x<5 .. any value of x lying in this range is greater than 5 .. but if x is defined in the range -6<x<5>-5 .. So yes if the range given in the answer choice entirely covers the range given in the question then it should be true ...

this can also be true for a open ended range .. for example if the question says x>-3 even then x>-5 because every integer greater than -3 will also be greater than -5 .. this is because the range x>-5 covers the range x>-3 entirely ...Does that help...
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:50 pm
Thanks gabriel (and sorry for bothering again..)

but the first question's answer is E. So that means r>-5 covers r>-1 but not sufficient...? :? this is the part I got confused...
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:14 am
magical cook wrote:Thanks gabriel (and sorry for bothering again..)

but the first question's answer is E. So that means r>-5 covers r>-1 but not sufficient...? :? this is the part I got confused...
No, over here the question says, if r>-5 is r>-1, so over here u have to check if r>-1 entirely covers r>-5 which it doesnt, bcoz r can take values between -5 and -1 in which case r is not >-1 ,

the answer would have been A if the question said r>-1 and asked u if r>-5 .. in such a case r>-5 does entirely cover r>-1 ... as u see there is a subtle difference between both and that subtle difference is what changes the answer in both these cases...

On a off note, u really dont have to be sorry about anything ..
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:19 am
Okay - thanks so much for patiently explaing this! :P
Join the discussion