https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmatprep-m-z-0-t25999.html
Another approach when statements are combined would be
m> 3z
4z>m
therefore 4z>3z which implies z>0(z is positive)
Since m>3z m must also be positive
m+z > 0 -> YES
Choose C
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
gmat prep question
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
I used the following reasoning and got to a diff answer.
a. m-3z>0
b. 4z-m>0
combining both
m>3z
and 4z>m
thus 3z<m<4z.
Thus m can be any value between 3z and 4z. Lets assume 3.5z.
So, m+z = 3.5 z + z = 4.5 z
Now, as we dont know anything about z, whether it is positive, negative or zero, we can't answer the question.
So, E.
Please point out any flaw in my reasoning.
a. m-3z>0
b. 4z-m>0
combining both
m>3z
and 4z>m
thus 3z<m<4z.
Thus m can be any value between 3z and 4z. Lets assume 3.5z.
So, m+z = 3.5 z + z = 4.5 z
Now, as we dont know anything about z, whether it is positive, negative or zero, we can't answer the question.
So, E.
Please point out any flaw in my reasoning.
Asset
















