Is |x-y| > |x| - |y|?

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:22 pm
1. is insufficient. In order to prove this, pick some numbers:

a. x = 2 and y = 1:
|x - y| = 1
|x| - |y| = 1
-----------
No, |x - y| is not greater than |x| - |y| (in this example, they're equal).

b. x = 1 and y = -2
|x - y| = 3
|x| - |y| = 1 - 2 = -1
---------
Yes, |x - y| is greater than |x| - |y| (because 3 > -1).

So, even if you choose y < x, you will get two conflicting results for the two pairs.


2. What this tells us is that x and y have different signs. A product of two numbers is negative only if one has a positive sign and the other has a negative sign. Again, we have two cases:

a. x is positive and y is negative
Since y is negative, -y will be positive. So x - y will be a positive ("x") plus another positive ("-y").
Now, |x| = x (since x is positive). This means that the right hand side of the inequality reads something like: positive ("x") minus another positive ("|y|" = -y).

So, this is why, yes, the inequality holds true.

b. x is negative and y is positive
This time, it's in reverse. Since y is positive, -y will be a negative. So x - y will be a negative ("x") plus another negative ("-y"). However, since we have the absolute value, it will be equal to the value described in the previous point.
The right hand side will have the same issue: you subtract something from a positive value, instead of adding it.

Again, yes, the inequality holds true.

This is why the answer is indeed the one pointed out by you. If anything is unclear, let me know and I'll try to explain better.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Chandigarh, INDIA

by onedayi'll » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:55 pm
Answer: B

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:06 am
Thanked: 1 times

by inetcleopatra » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am
Thank you Dana for the great explanation.