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.

gmat prep integers

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by vinviper1 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:31 pm
bumpy bump
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:15 pm
We really need to do this one by picking numbers.

It's easy to eliminate (1) and (2) individually, since each one gives us an infinite number of possible values for x. So, we're at the combination stage and know the answer must be either (c) or (e).

Let's pick numbers that work for both statements and see if we can narrow down x enough.

(1) x + y is closest to 4
(2) x - y is closest to 1

Well, we could pick x = 2.6 and y = 1.4. In this case, the closest integer to x is 3.

However, we could also pick x = 2.4 and y = 1.6. In this case, the closest integer to x is 2.

Since we can get more than 1 possible answer, the statements taken together are insufficient: choose (e).
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

by leovonp » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:32 pm
I tried to approach it analytically:

4 ~ x + y
1 ~ x - y

If you subtract the second statement from the first statement you end up with

3 ~ 2y

Which means y ~ 1.5 and x ~ 2.5

Now you are stuck in the middle and none of the statements really help you to solve the issue so you pick (e)
Join the discussion

by Ian Stewart » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:43 pm
Yes, it's certainly possible to do this without picking numbers.

From Statement 1:
3.5 < x+y < 4.5

and from Statement 2:
0.5 < x-y < 1.5

Combining these,

4 < 2x < 6
2 < x < 3

And thus not enough information to answer the question.
Join the discussion

by netigen » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:05 pm
Ian Stewart wrote:Yes, it's certainly possible to do this without picking numbers.

From Statement 1:
3.5 < x+y < 4.5

and from Statement 2:
0.5 < x-y < 1.5

Combining these,

4 < 2x < 6
2 < x < 3

And thus not enough information to answer the question.
Just a quick note.

The upper bounds will not be 4.5 and 1.5 but 4.49 and 1.49. Though this will not affect the reasoning and final answer.
Join the discussion

by Ian Stewart » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:43 pm
netigen wrote:
Ian Stewart wrote:Yes, it's certainly possible to do this without picking numbers.

From Statement 1:
3.5 < x+y < 4.5

and from Statement 2:
0.5 < x-y < 1.5

Combining these,

4 < 2x < 6
2 < x < 3

And thus not enough information to answer the question.
Just a quick note.

The upper bounds will not be 4.5 and 1.5 but 4.49 and 1.49. Though this will not affect the reasoning and final answer.
No, the upper bounds will be as I've written them. I'm guessing you're assuming that we're writing things with two decimal place precision, but if x+y = 4.49999, it is still closer to 4 than it is to 5 (or any other integer, for that matter).
Join the discussion