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
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 28
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

15 live classes from Sep 28, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & 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.

inequalities

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by warlock » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:26 pm
IMO D
Join the discussion

by sudharsong » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:51 pm
IMO E
Join the discussion

by sudharsong » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:52 pm
IMO E
Join the discussion

by raju232007 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:59 am
statement 1:

x>0
x is positive
no information about y

Insufficient

statement 2:

y<0
y is negative
no information about x

Insufficient

Combining both the statements we get

x is positive and y is negative

Let x=2 & y=-3
(x-y)/(x+y)=-5
Is -5>1 ....Ans is no

Let x=3 & y=-2
(x-y)/(x+y)=5
Is 5>1 ...Ans is yes

So the ans should be E....
Join the discussion

by rohangupta83 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:41 am
imo E
Join the discussion

by msvmuthu » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:10 am
Why shouldnt we simplify the above given equation?

for example, in the above question I simplified the equation to:
y<0

since the first choice is x>0,
and since we have derived y<0;
(x-y) / (x+y) => will be like (x+y) /(x-y)
there fore surely, this will be greater than 1.

There fore my choice was A.

Please some one throw more light on this!
Join the discussion

by Ian Stewart » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:57 am
msvmuthu wrote:Why shouldnt we simplify the above given equation?

for example, in the above question I simplified the equation to:
y<0

since the first choice is x>0,
and since we have derived y<0;
(x-y) / (x+y) => will be like (x+y) /(x-y)
there fore surely, this will be greater than 1.

There fore my choice was A.

Please some one throw more light on this!
There are two issues above- both are common mistakes, so important to understand:

First, you've 'simplified' the inequality to get y < 0, then used this as part of your solution. You can't do this: 'Is (x-y)/(x+y) > 1?' was the question; it's not a fact. If you assume that (x-y)/(x+y) > 1 is true, it shouldn't be surprising that you then discover that (x-y)/(x+y) > 1 is true; this is what's called 'begging the question' in logic. It can be a very good idea to simplify expressions like the one in the question above, but be clear about what you're doing: you are not deriving a fact; instead you are rephrasing the question.

Second, when you have an inequality, if you multiply both sides of the inequality by a negative, you must reverse the inequality. If, say, you know that

a/b > 1

you cannot multiply both sides by b and conclude that a > b, at least not without knowing something about b. It is certainly true that a > b if b is positive, but if b is negative, we would need to reverse the inequality; we would find that a < b. When you rewrote the inequality:

(x-y)/(x+y) > 1

to get y < 0, you were assuming x+y is positive. If x+y is negative, you need to reverse the inequality; you would find that y > 0.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com
Join the discussion

by 4meonly » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:59 pm
Somebody, please post the OA!!!
Join the discussion

by stop@800 » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:25 am
4meonly wrote:Somebody, please post the OA!!!
has to be E
Join the discussion

by beater » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:28 pm
OA - E. Apologize for the late reponse.
Join the discussion

by gkumar » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:38 am
Ian, can you explain the fallacy in my logic as described here? https://www.beatthegmat.com/x-y-x-y-1-t47013.html
Join the discussion