Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

gmat prep integers

Expert replies
by vinviper1 » Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:41 pm
Thanks!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Join the discussion
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