Help on DS Absolute Value Problem

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:49 pm

Help on DS Absolute Value Problem

by cghan » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:33 pm
What is the value of |x|?
1) |x^2 + 16| -5 = 27
2) x^2 = 8x - 16

My only question here is regarding statement 1. The solution to this problem does not put forth two ways to write the equation as you're supposed to do with absolute value equations.

The first version would be x^2 + 16 -5 = 27. Would the second version not be x^2 +16 -5 = -27 ?

The solution to the problem does not even set up the second equation for the case of -27.
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:10 pm
Hi cghan,

This DS question "overlaps" the Number Property rules, which means that there is NO second equation. Here's why:

Fact 1 gives us |X^2 + 16| - 5 = 27

Simplifying, we get...

|X^2 + 16| = 32

Normally, we'd be looking for two "types" of answers: usually 1 positive and 1 negative.

Here though, since X^2 CANNOT be negative, there's no way for X^2 + 16 to give us a negative result. We have ONLY a positive result to work with.

By extension, X can be either +4 or -4, but since the question asks for |X|, we end up with 4 either way. Fact 1 is SUFFICIENT.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:26 pm
To find: |X|

Statement 1:
|x^2 + 16| -5 = 27
|x^2 + 16| = 32
x^2 cannot be negative..
x^2 = 16 ==> |X| = 6
SUFFICIENT


Statement 2:
x^2 = 8x - 16
x^2 - 8x + 16 = 0
x = 4
SUFFICIENT

[spoiler]{D}?[/spoiler]
R A H U L

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:49 pm

by cghan » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:47 am
Super, thanks so much for the explanation. I suppose I relied more on my 'automatic' processes (i.e. automatically making two versions of the equation rather than looking at the problem and seeing if it made sense.