GMAT Prep Inequalities: ?Best way to attack?

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:07 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 447 times
Followed by:88 members

by Rahul@gurome » Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:07 am
euro wrote:If zt < -3, is z < 4?

(1) z < 9
(2) t < -4

OA is [spoiler](E)[/spoiler]

What is the best way to attack a problem like this?
Given: zt < -3 => z and t are of opposite sign.

Statement 1: z < 9
z may be positive/ negative => t may be negative/positive.
Also not possible to determine whether z < 4 or not. As for t = -5, z = 3 or 5 both satisfies the given inequality: zt < -3

Not sufficient.

Statement 2: t < -4
t is negative => z is positive.
But not possible to determine whether z < 4 or not. As for t = -5, z = 3 or 5 both satisfies the given inequality: zt < -3

Not sufficient.

1 & 2 Together: t < -4 and 0 < z < 9
Taking the same example, t = -5, z = 3 or 5 both satisfies the given inequality: zt < -3
Therefore, z may or may not be less than 4.

Not sufficient.

The correct answer is E.
Rahul Lakhani
Quant Expert
Gurome, Inc.
https://www.GuroMe.com
On MBA sabbatical (at ISB) for 2011-12 - will stay active as time permits
1-800-566-4043 (USA)
+91-99201 32411 (India)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:56 am
Location: India
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:730

by euro » Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:35 am
Great work Rahul. Thanks!

I really like how you quickly deduced (from the stem) that 'z' and 't' are of opposite signs. :)

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:07 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 447 times
Followed by:88 members

by Rahul@gurome » Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:53 am
euro wrote:Great work Rahul. Thanks!

I really like how you quickly deduced (from the stem) that 'z' and 't' are of opposite signs. :)
For two real numbers a and b,
  • (1) ab > 0 implies a and b are of same sign.
    (2) ab < 0 implies a and b are of opposite sign.
Because,
  • (1) (+ve)*(+ve) = +ve
    (2) (+ve)*(- ve) = - ve
    (3) (- ve)*(+ve) = - ve
    (4) (- ve)*(- ve) = +ve
Hope it is clear now.
Rahul Lakhani
Quant Expert
Gurome, Inc.
https://www.GuroMe.com
On MBA sabbatical (at ISB) for 2011-12 - will stay active as time permits
1-800-566-4043 (USA)
+91-99201 32411 (India)