Absolute Range

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:50 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members

Absolute Range

by Ravish » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:11 am
Taken from the Manhattan Equations , Inequalities and VIC's homework bank. I didn't quite like Manhattan's explanation so was hoping someone on the boards has a simpler solution.

Is |x| < 1 ?

(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|

(2) |x - 3| > 0


OA is C

I have attached Manhattan's explanation should someone review it and break it down:

[spoiler]We can rephrase the question by opening up the absolute value sign. In other words, we must solve all possible scenarios for the inequality, remembering that the absolute value is always a positive value. The two scenarios for the inequality are as follows:

If x > 0, the question becomes "Is x < 1?"
If x < 0, the question becomes: "Is x > -1?"
We can also combine the questions: "Is -1 < x < 1?"

Since Statement 2 is less complex than Statement 1, begin with Statement 2 and a BD/ACE grid.

(1) INSUFFICIENT: There are three possible equations here if we open up the absolute value signs:

1. If x < -1, the values inside the absolute value symbols on both sides of the equation are negative, so we must multiply each through by -1 (to find its opposite, or positive, value):

|x + 1| = 2|x -1| -(x + 1) = 2(1 - x) x = 3
(However, this is invalid since in this scenario, x < -1.)

2. If -1 < x < 1, the value inside the absolute value symbols on the left side of the equation is positive, but the value on the right side of the equation is negative. Thus, only the value on the right side of the equation must be multiplied by -1:

|x + 1| = 2|x -1| x + 1 = 2(1 - x) x = 1/3

3. If x > 1, the values inside the absolute value symbols on both sides of the equation are positive. Thus, we can simply remove the absolute value symbols:

|x + 1| = 2|x -1| x + 1 = 2(x - 1) x = 3

Thus x = 1/3 or 3. While 1/3 is between -1 and 1, 3 is not. Thus, we cannot answer the question.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: There are two possible equations here if we open up the absolute value sign:

1. If x > 3, the value inside the absolute value symbols is greater than zero. Thus, we can simply remove the absolute value symbols:

|x - 3| > 0 x - 3 > 0 x > 3

2. If x < 3, the value inside the absolute value symbols is negative, so we must multiply through by -1 (to find its opposite, or positive, value).

|x - 3| > 0 3 - x > 0 x < 3

If x is either greater than 3 or less than 3, then x is anything but 3. This does not answer the question as to whether x is between -1 and 1.

(1) AND (2) SUFFICIENT: According to statement (1), x can be 3 or 1/3. According to statement (2), x cannot be 3. Thus using both statements, we know that x = 1/3 which IS between -1 and 1.[/spoiler]
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3835
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 1854 times
Followed by:523 members
GMAT Score:770

by Anurag@Gurome » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:09 am
Ravish wrote:Is |x| < 1 ?

(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
(2) |x - 3| > 0[/spoiler]
Statement 1: |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
This equation has two critical points, i.e. the points where at least one of the terms changes its sign, x = -1 and x = 1. At x = 1, |x - 1| changes sign and at x = -1, |x + 1| changes sign. These two points divides the number line in three region: x < -1, -1 ≤ x < 1 and x ≥ 1. Thus analysis of the equation will be different in each of these three region. Let's do it.

1. x < -1
  • (x + 1) < 0 and (x - 1) < 0, hence
    |x + 1| = 2|x - 1| => -(x + 1) = 2*(-(x - 1)) => x = 3.
    x = 3 is not a valid solution as our region of interest is x < -1. Hence no solution in this region.
2. -1 ≤ x < 1
  • (x + 1) ≥ 0 and (x - 1) < 0, hence
    |x + 1| = 2|x - 1| => (x + 1) = 2*(-(x - 1)) => x = 1/3.
    x = 1/3 is a valid solution as our region of interest is -1 ≤ x < 1
3. x ≥ 1
  • (x + 1) > 0 and (x - 1) ≥ 0, hence
    |x + 1| = 2|x - 1| => (x + 1) = 2*(x - 1) => x = 3.
    x = 3 is a valid solution as our region of interest is x ≥ 1
Hence two possible solution of the equation, x = 1/3 and x = 3. For the first one, |x| < 1 BUT for the other one, |x| > 1.

Not sufficient.

Statement 2: |x - 3| > 0
Analysis of this is quiet simple. Note that absolute value is always greater than or equal to zero. Hence this simply implies x is not equal to 3. For any other value of x, the inequality satisfies. Thus we cannot say anything about |x|.

Not sufficient

1 & 2 Together: Only possible value of x is 1/3 for which |x| < 1.

Sufficient

The correct answer is C.
Anurag Mairal, Ph.D., MBA
GMAT Expert, Admissions and Career Guidance
Gurome, Inc.
1-800-566-4043 (USA)

Join Our Facebook Groups
GMAT with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/272466352793633/
Admissions with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/461459690536574/
Career Advising with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/360435787349781/

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:18 pm
Ravish wrote:
Is |x| < 1 ?

(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|

(2) |x - 3| > 0
Different Approach :

Lets understand the problem in another way. If you understand it, then this problem will seem trivial.

Is |x| < 1 ? means -> does x lie between (-1) and (1) as shown below ?

...........(-1)................(1)...............

Statement 1 :
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times it's distance from 1.

...........(-1)..............x'..(1)............x"...

There are two possible values of x, one to the left side of 1, i.e. x' (1/3) and another to the right of 1, i.e. x"(3).
Not sufficient

[If you have difficulty finding values of x' and x" read the note]

Statement 2 :
|x - 3| > 0 means , x is anything BUT 3 -- Not sufficient

Combining 1 and 2 :

...........(-1).......0......x'..(1)................

x has only one value x', so Sufficient .
C

[Note : Distance between -1 and 1 = 2, So x' = -1 + 2*2/3 OR 1-1*2/3 = 1/3
x" lies towards right of 1, so [x" - (-1)] = 2*[x"-1] => x" = 3]
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:17 pm

by nehatandon » Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:03 pm
anshumishra wrote:
Ravish wrote:
Is |x| < 1 ?

(1) |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|

(2) |x - 3| > 0
Different Approach :

Lets understand the problem in another way. If you understand it, then this problem will seem trivial.

Is |x| < 1 ? means -> does x lie between (-1) and (1) as shown below ?

...........(-1)................(1)...............

Statement 1 :
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times it's distance from 1.

...........(-1)..............x'..(1)............x"...

There are two possible values of x, one to the left side of 1, i.e. x' (1/3) and another to the right of 1, i.e. x"(3).
Not sufficient

[If you have difficulty finding values of x' and x" read the note]

Statement 2 :
|x - 3| > 0 means , x is anything BUT 3 -- Not sufficient

Combining 1 and 2 :

...........(-1).......0......x'..(1)................

x has only one value x', so Sufficient .
C

[Note : Distance between -1 and 1 = 2, So x' = -1 + 2*2/3 OR 1-1*2/3 = 1/3
x" lies towards right of 1, so [x" - (-1)] = 2*[x"-1] => x" = 3]
Is this solution valid ? The absolute value problem is solved by considering expression inside mod as +ve and then considering values inside mod as -ve (Like Anurag's solution).

Experts, please comment!

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:56 pm
the above is much more complicated than is necessary for these kinds of problems. i.e., for equations like these, it's never necessary to consider, explicitly, all the different intervals on which these expressions have different signs.

instead, all you have to do is this:

if you have an EQUATION with ABSOLUTE VALUES:
1) WRITE THE DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS
of negative/positive values of the expressions in absolute-value bars.
--> be aware that some of these combinations may be redundant; don't solve the same equation twice!
2) SOLVE the resulting equations.
3) CHECK the answers.


so, for the following equation: |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
here are all of the combinations --
a) (x + 1) = 2(x - 1)
b) (-x - 1) = 2(x - 1)
c) (x + 1) = 2(-x + 1) --> this is the same as equation (b), so no need to consider it
d) (-x - 1) = 2(-x + 1) --> this is the same as equation (a), so no need to consider it

if you solve equation (a), you get x = 3.
CHECK this in the original equation --> gives |4| = 2|2|. this is true, so x = 3 is a solution.

if you solve equation (b), you get x = 1/3.
CHECK this in the original equation --> gives |4/3| = 2|-2/3|. this is true, so x = 1/3 is a solution.

so your solutions are x = 3 and x = 1/3.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:36 pm
lunarpower wrote:the above is much more complicated than is necessary for these kinds of problems. i.e., for equations like these, it's never necessary to consider, explicitly, all the different intervals on which these expressions have different signs.

instead, all you have to do is this:

if you have an EQUATION with ABSOLUTE VALUES:
1) WRITE THE DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS
of negative/positive values of the expressions in absolute-value bars.
--> be aware that some of these combinations may be redundant; don't solve the same equation twice!
2) SOLVE the resulting equations.
3) CHECK the answers.


so, for the following equation: |x + 1| = 2|x - 1|
here are all of the combinations --
a) (x + 1) = 2(x - 1)
b) (-x - 1) = 2(x - 1)
c) (x + 1) = 2(-x + 1) --> this is the same as equation (b), so no need to consider it
d) (-x - 1) = 2(-x + 1) --> this is the same as equation (a), so no need to consider it

if you solve equation (a), you get x = 3.
CHECK this in the original equation --> gives |4| = 2|2|. this is true, so x = 3 is a solution.

if you solve equation (b), you get x = 1/3.
CHECK this in the original equation --> gives |4/3| = 2|-2/3|. this is true, so x = 1/3 is a solution.

so your solutions are x = 3 and x = 1/3.
Hi Ron,

Thanks for the comments.

Neha, as per Ron (I hope), the solution is valid (BUT much complicated). So, you can give it a try if you want or follow the straight forward approach which Ron has mentioned.

Now the thing is as I mentioned, my approach is an alternative one, and sorry to differ a bit, BUT is simpler and more intuitive. This could be debatable though what is intuitive for me is cumbersome for the other and vice versa.

In my approach, You know exactly, what is the meaning of each and every expression given, geometrically.
I didn't need to solve 4 equations and test that how many of them are repeating. The only calculation done was : distance of x from (-1) is 2 times it's distance from 1. Yeah, if finding that is more difficult, then it is more tedious :)

May be the diagram in the post might have given you a feeling that it is cumbersome, however on a scratch pad if you try drawing these, it is much faster.

By the way, RON I do admire you and try to follow your posts, and hope that you don't think I am trying to prove myself in any ways. Hopefully I don't sound like that :)
I just wrote what I felt, since I am comfortable with BOTH the approaches what we are discussing here and wanted to leave my fair opinion(s).
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:17 pm

by nehatandon » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:48 pm
@anshumishra
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times it's distance from 1.
Thanks, but how did you deduce that ?

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:01 pm
anshumishra wrote:Now the thing is as I mentioned, my approach is an alternative one, and sorry to differ a bit, BUT is simpler and more intuitive. This could be debatable though what is intuitive for me is cumbersome for the other and vice versa.
ya, we could argue back and forth about what's "simpler" or "more intuitive"; at the end of the day, that's more a function of your experience with different solution methods than of any objective quality of the solutions. i.e., if you're used to doing something, you'll find it easier; if you aren't, you'll find it harder.

the pertinent fact, though, is that the method i've presented will solve ALL equations with absolute values in them -- literally, every single one.
this is a perspective that posters on this forum often forget: the only solution methods that are high priorities on the GMAT are those that are HIGHLY GENERALIZABLE. remember -- the problems on the test WILL NOT look like the problems you'll see in practice, so you should place primary emphasis on those methods that can be generalized to large numbers of problems.

also, it's very unlikely that you'll actually have to solve four equations. the only time that will happen is if an absolute value is added to (or subtracted from) something else, e.g., |x - 1| = |2x - 3| + x.
in equations such as the one above -- i.e., equations that don't contain sums or differences involving absolute values -- you will have to solve a maximum of two equations.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:02 pm
nehatandon wrote:@anshumishra
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times it's distance from 1.
Thanks, but how did you deduce that ?
Yeah, that is related with the basic understanding of mod value ?

As a general rule : |x-a| = r , means distance of x from a is equal to r.

So, here |x+1| can be written as : |x-(-1)|, so you can think of that as the distance of x from -1.

Similarly, 2|x-1| means twice the distance of x from "1".

You can compare the algebraic solution and this absolute approach. Please go through these links, where I have tried to explain and solve the problem using both the approaches :

https://www.beatthegmat.com/simplify-t72227.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/simplify-t72226.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/inequality-w ... 71730.html
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:07 pm
as an example of what i mean:
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times its distance from 1.
this is correct -- but, if i make a minor adjustment such as deleting one of the sets of absolute value bars, to produce x + 1 = 2|x - 1|, then the "distance" method doesn't work anymore (at least not in the same way).
by contrast, the method i've presented will still solve equations with such adjustments (and with much more drastic adjustments, too).

whenever you come up with a solution method, NEVER, EVER just apply it to one problem, sit back, and smile.
instead, ask yourself, "to what *else* could this method conceivably apply? how generalizable is it?"
if it's only going to solve a very narrow, specialized range of problems, it should be a lower priority than methods that are more versatile -- regardless of your relative levels of comfort with the methods in question.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:11 pm
lunarpower wrote:
anshumishra wrote:Now the thing is as I mentioned, my approach is an alternative one, and sorry to differ a bit, BUT is simpler and more intuitive. This could be debatable though what is intuitive for me is cumbersome for the other and vice versa.
ya, we could argue back and forth about what's "simpler" or "more intuitive"; at the end of the day, that's more a function of your experience with different solution methods than of any objective quality of the solutions. i.e., if you're used to doing something, you'll find it easier; if you aren't, you'll find it harder.

the pertinent fact, though, is that the method i've presented will solve ALL equations with absolute values in them -- literally, every single one.
this is a perspective that posters on this forum often forget: the only solution methods that are high priorities on the GMAT are those that are HIGHLY GENERALIZABLE. remember -- the problems on the test WILL NOT look like the problems you'll see in practice, so you should place primary emphasis on those methods that can be generalized to large numbers of problems.

also, it's very unlikely that you'll actually have to solve four equations. the only time that will happen is if an absolute value is added to (or subtracted from) something else, e.g., |x - 1| = |2x - 3| + x.
in equations such as the one above -- i.e., equations that don't contain sums or differences involving absolute values -- you will have to solve a maximum of two equations.
Ron, I do agree with everything what you have just written here.
And although I do use the approach I mentioned, it is still an alternative approach for me as well. The only good thing is , I can recognize it pretty fast when to use this one or the main approach.

Now, I am not sure whether we should post alternative approaches here or not. I see all sort of approaches posted here by many experts, and it doesn't hurt as long as one understand when to use what?
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:25 pm
lunarpower wrote:as an example of what i mean:
|x+1| = 2|x-1| means , distance of x from (-1) is 2 times its distance from 1.
this is correct -- but, if i make a minor adjustment such as deleting one of the sets of absolute value bars, to produce x + 1 = 2|x - 1|, then the "distance" method doesn't work anymore (at least not in the same way).
by contrast, the method i've presented will still solve equations with such adjustments (and with much more drastic adjustments, too).

whenever you come up with a solution method, NEVER, EVER just apply it to one problem, sit back, and smile.
instead, ask yourself, "to what *else* could this method conceivably apply? how generalizable is it?"
if it's only going to solve a very narrow, specialized range of problems, it should be a lower priority than methods that are more versatile -- regardless of your relative levels of comfort with the methods in question.
Yes, in my previous posts I did accept that already.
And have provided few links where I was able to use both the methods and compare them. Now when to use a specialized way to solve and when to go for a proper solution method (may be time crunch, recognized problem types), you are the BEST to talk about it. Let me drop my pen ! :)
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:01 pm
Thanked: 147 times
Followed by:3 members

by anshumishra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:20 pm
lunarpower wrote:
anshumishra wrote:Now the thing is as I mentioned, my approach is an alternative one, and sorry to differ a bit, BUT is simpler and more intuitive. This could be debatable though what is intuitive for me is cumbersome for the other and vice versa.
ya, we could argue back and forth about what's "simpler" or "more intuitive"; at the end of the day, that's more a function of your experience with different solution methods than of any objective quality of the solutions. i.e., if you're used to doing something, you'll find it easier; if you aren't, you'll find it harder.

the pertinent fact, though, is that the method i've presented will solve ALL equations with absolute values in them -- literally, every single one.
this is a perspective that posters on this forum often forget: the only solution methods that are high priorities on the GMAT are those that are HIGHLY GENERALIZABLE. remember -- the problems on the test WILL NOT look like the problems you'll see in practice, so you should place primary emphasis on those methods that can be generalized to large numbers of problems.

also, it's very unlikely that you'll actually have to solve four equations. the only time that will happen is if an absolute value is added to (or subtracted from) something else, e.g., |x - 1| = |2x - 3| + x.
in equations such as the one above -- i.e., equations that don't contain sums or differences involving absolute values -- you will have to solve a maximum of two equations.
Also, while we are here let me add one parallel thought, along the same line you have made :

Shouldn't people learn the standard way to solve Quadratic Equation using the formula :
-b+-√D/2a (which works always, is faster also for any non-trivial equation)
instead of using factorization technique ? Most of the time, I see the solution providers (including experts) tend to use factorization.

OR - Is it... what I feel is easier or faster is actually not that easy for others (BUT, it is tough to believe in this case) ?
Thanks
Anshu

(Every mistake is a lesson learned )

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:35 pm
hey -- i'll consolidate a couple of responses:
And have provided few links where I was able to use both the methods and compare them. Now when to use a specialized way to solve and when to go for a proper solution method (may be time crunch, recognized problem types), you are the BEST to talk about it. Let me drop my pen !
well, you should definitely try to acquire as many solution methods as possible for any given type of problem -- i.e., it's best to learn the generalized method that i've presented here AS WELL AS any specialized methods that you can come up with. remember, the problems that show up on the exam are not much going to resemble the problems that you see in your homework, so priority a-1 is to acquire the largest possible diversity of solution methods.
when i talk about "high priority" and "lower priority", i don't mean that you shouldn't bother to learn the lower-priority methods; rather, i'm saying that the total amount of study time you have (and the total amount of memory you have to go with it) is finite, and so the highly generalizable methods should occupy the highest rung on your ladder of priorities. once you've got such methods, though, learning even more methods is better.
Shouldn't people learn the standard way to solve Quadratic Equation using the formula :
-b+-√D/2a (which works always, is faster also for any non-trivial equation)
instead of using factorization technique ? Most of the time, I see the solution providers (including experts) tend to use factorization.

OR - Is it... what I feel is easier or faster is actually not that easy for others (BUT, it is tough to believe in this case) ?
i guess this may be a function of the country in which you were educated (more specifically, the way mathematics is taught and drilled in that country), because essentially 100% of students who learned mathematics in the u.s. would disagree with your assessment of which of these two methods is easier/faster.
of course, what's crucial here is the definition of "nontrivial equation", a term that is left undefined in your argument here.
i mean, the extremes of the spectrum are obvious. the easiest quadratics, such as x^2 - 6x + 8 = 0, are much easier and faster by factoring (this equation usually takes American-educated students no more than 3-5 seconds -- a time that's probably impossible to achieve with the quadratic formula -- to factor and solve). and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, quadratics that don't factor into integers at all (like x^2 - 6x + 6 = 0) are impossible to solve by factoring, so you have to go with the quadratic formula in those cases.
for the cases in the middle, your preference is almost certainly dictated by the way in which you learned to solve these equations when you were in high school (secondary school, etc.) i can't vouch for any other country, but americans would almost certainly find it easier to use factoring to solve *any* quadratic with reasonably sized coefficients on which factoring is possible.

the factor about which you're not really thinking here, though, is the content of the exam itself: i don't think i've EVER seen a quadratic equation on the gmat that could be described as "nontrivial". in other words, every single one of the many quadratic equations i've seen in official problems has been very easily factorable.
in this light, it makes more sense to emphasize factoring over the use of the quadratic formula -- not because of any inherent quality of either of these methods, but rather because of what's contained in the exam itself. if the exam presented lots of quadratic equations with large, inconvenient coefficients, than the quadratic formula would take on extra importance -- but it doesn't.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:36 am

by [email protected] » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:36 pm
ANSWER SHOULD BE AAAAAAAAA (I AM 100% SURE)
FROM 1: WE GET X= 3 OR X=1/3. BUT IF PUT VALUE OF X=1/3 THAN STATEMENT 1 IS NOT TRUE. BUT FOR X=3 THE STATEMENT IS TRUE. HENCE WE KNOW X=3. THUS SUFFICIENT.

ANSWER SHOULD BE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

PLEASE CHECK AND TELL ME WHETHER I AM RIGHT OR WRONG