First i would try to ans from Statement 2, because i got little confused with statemet 1, so left it for the time being
Initially i thought B is the ans !!

From 2 : m is negative and seeing the given statement mv<pv<0
we can say p is also negative, eventually saying v is positive.So sufficient.

Now when i got 2 is sufficient , i tried statement 1 once again to cross verufy.

If you plugging in no. noway we can get v <0 and mv<pv>mv.so V has to be positive.Sufficient.

The first statement though simple , is little tricky especially under timed test condition.

This question is actually straight forward if you just plug in different values for v with different combos of signs for m & p. Because the question only asks about the sign of v, we should use 1 and -1 as values for V and see what we get.

stem: mv < pv < 0
Just from the stem we know that the signs are dfferent for m&p than they are for v because their product is less than 0. With that, we also know that m & p must have the same sign. Now the statements are much easier to translate

1. m < p- ok, we can plug in different values to see what we get.

v= 1
m=-3
p= -2

-3 < -2 < 0 that works...

v= -1
m= 2
p= 3

-2 > -3 < 0... doesn't work.

v has to be positive- sufficient.

2. Again, based on what we know from the stem, if m < 0 then v > 0. Logically, only considering mv < 0, we also see that v > 0