I think this is the solution.....
is 1 sufficient?
Plug in variables
Say m=1 z=-2, the answer is NO
Saym=100 and z=1, then YES
So 1 is insufficent
2
Say z=1, m=6, YES
Say z=-4, m=2, NO
Not sufficient
combined sufficent?
If you want to flip an inequality, multiply the whole side by -1
So, m-3z > 0 as is m-4z>0
m>3z, or m>4z. Insert variables -1 and -3 or 4 and 1. Different solutions. Therefore
E, no solution
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
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
GPREP - 1 (Explanation Plzzz..)
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
It should be 'C'.
From 1: m-3z>0 => m>3z
both m and z could be positive or negative to satusfy this.
example : let m=7; z=2 so,m>3z ; here m+z>0
let m=-5 and z=-2 so, m>3z but here m+z<0
so not sufficient
From 2: 4z-m<0=>4z<m
let z=2, m=9 so 4z<m ; here m+n>0
let z=-2 amd m=-3; here 4z<m; but m+n <0, not sufficient
Now combining both :
from (1) m-3z>0
from (2) 4z-m<0=>m-4z>0
solving (1) and (2) z>0 => m>0 (since m>3z)
So, m+n >0; sufficient.
Amit
From 1: m-3z>0 => m>3z
both m and z could be positive or negative to satusfy this.
example : let m=7; z=2 so,m>3z ; here m+z>0
let m=-5 and z=-2 so, m>3z but here m+z<0
so not sufficient
From 2: 4z-m<0=>4z<m
let z=2, m=9 so 4z<m ; here m+n>0
let z=-2 amd m=-3; here 4z<m; but m+n <0, not sufficient
Now combining both :
from (1) m-3z>0
from (2) 4z-m<0=>m-4z>0
solving (1) and (2) z>0 => m>0 (since m>3z)
So, m+n >0; sufficient.
Amit
-
kiran.raze
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 45
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:710
Hi Amit,
Just co-relating to the solution you have presented:
m-3z>0
m-4z>0
there are cases when
-->M Z
1>+ +
2> - -
3>+ -
what Im trying to say is that there are values which satisfy all the above cases of M&Z based on the 2 inequalities stated above(for eg: substitute m=5,z=1for op1,m=-1,z=-1 for op2,m=4,z=-1for op3). And for these options there can be different options of vaues for m+Z i.e. it can + for
option 1,- for op 2, not sure for op3 - so then how can both be suffiecient to arrive at an answer ....Could you please elaborate for my understanding ??[/u]
Just co-relating to the solution you have presented:
m-3z>0
m-4z>0
there are cases when
-->M Z
1>+ +
2> - -
3>+ -
what Im trying to say is that there are values which satisfy all the above cases of M&Z based on the 2 inequalities stated above(for eg: substitute m=5,z=1for op1,m=-1,z=-1 for op2,m=4,z=-1for op3). And for these options there can be different options of vaues for m+Z i.e. it can + for
option 1,- for op 2, not sure for op3 - so then how can both be suffiecient to arrive at an answer ....Could you please elaborate for my understanding ??[/u]
-
kiran.raze
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 45
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:710
Hi Amit,
Just co-relating to the solution you have presented:
m-3z>0
m-4z>0
there are cases when
-->M Z
1>+ +
2> - -
3>+ -
what Im trying to say is that there are values which satisfy all the above cases of M&Z based on the 2 inequalities stated above(for eg: substitute m=5,z=1for op1,m=-1,z=-1 for op2,m=4,z=-1for op3). And for these options there can be different options of vaues for m+Z i.e. it can + for
option 1,- for op 2, not sure for op3 - so then how can both be suffiecient to arrive at an answer ....Could you please elaborate for my understanding ??[/u]
Just co-relating to the solution you have presented:
m-3z>0
m-4z>0
there are cases when
-->M Z
1>+ +
2> - -
3>+ -
what Im trying to say is that there are values which satisfy all the above cases of M&Z based on the 2 inequalities stated above(for eg: substitute m=5,z=1for op1,m=-1,z=-1 for op2,m=4,z=-1for op3). And for these options there can be different options of vaues for m+Z i.e. it can + for
option 1,- for op 2, not sure for op3 - so then how can both be suffiecient to arrive at an answer ....Could you please elaborate for my understanding ??[/u]
hmm...i'm also getting E.raptor84 wrote:IS m+z>0
1) m-3z>0
2) 4z-m<0
OA C
we know it's not A or B so it's either C or E.
option 1: m=5, z=1
Satisfies statement 1 & 2 and 5+1 = 6 > 0
option 2: m= -4, z= -2
1) -4 - 3(-2) = 2 > 0
2) 4(-2) - -4 = -4 < 0
m + z > 0 ====> -4 + - 2 = -6 < 0
it's giving conflicting results so shouldn't the answer be E?
Anyone?
the ans should be E
m=2 z = -3
m =4 z = -3
These two values satisfies 1 & 2 and will give you both negative and positive value for m+z...
Hence E
m=2 z = -3
m =4 z = -3
These two values satisfies 1 & 2 and will give you both negative and positive value for m+z...
Hence E
I go with C..raptor84 wrote:IS m+z>0
1) m-3z>0
2) 4z-m<0
OA C
here it is..
Adding statement 1 and 2 we get Z > 0 and if Z > 0
and if M-3z>0, it implies that M >0
thus hence m+z > 0
Hope it helps.. do let me know if u have any doubts..
Suyog wrote:@Sudhir3127 can u please comment on Kshin78's post. Thanks!
When 'm' and 'z' are assumed; one time with +ve sign and other time with -ve sign they give no definite solution whether (m+z) >0 or not.
At times m+z>0 and at times (m+z) is <0.
When we combine the two (given) statements, we get that z is definitely > 0 and since m>3z => m is +ve. (i.e. 'z' and 'm' get their unique signs as being both positive when they both satisfy stem 1 & stem2).
When we combine two statements, we generally try to get some definite value/s or sign/s out of it to see whether it gives a definite ans always.
And that is what we get here , both "m" & "z" are positive and m>z, both satisfying two statements at the same time.
Hope this justifies.
Amit
IS m+z>0
1) m-3z>0
2) 4z-m<0
1) m>3z
For z<0:
m+z can be +ve as well as -ve
Insufficient
2) m>4z
Again For z<0:
m+z can be +ve as well as -ve
Insufficient
Combining the 2 conditions we have
m>3z & m>4z.
These conditions will be true simultaneously only when
m>4z.
Which essentially gives us the second condition.
So insufficient.
I'll go with answer E.
Any comments?
Thanks
1) m-3z>0
2) 4z-m<0
1) m>3z
For z<0:
m+z can be +ve as well as -ve
Insufficient
2) m>4z
Again For z<0:
m+z can be +ve as well as -ve
Insufficient
Combining the 2 conditions we have
m>3z & m>4z.
These conditions will be true simultaneously only when
m>4z.
Which essentially gives us the second condition.
So insufficient.
I'll go with answer E.
Any comments?
Thanks
That's precisely what I'm trying to say, if with (I) & (II), we are getting different answer then how come its 'C'amitansu wrote:Suyog wrote:@Sudhir3127 can u please comment on Kshin78's post. Thanks!
When 'm' and 'z' are assumed; one time with +ve sign and other time with -ve sign they give no definite solution whether (m+z) >0 or not.
At times m+z>0 and at times (m+z) is <0.
I guess m=5, z=1 are definite values
When we combine two statements, we generally try to get some definite value/s or sign/s out of it to see whether it gives a definite ans always.
And that is what we get here , both "m" & "z" are positive and m>z, both satisfying two statements at the same time.
Which satisfies (I) & (II) both and it says the question asked is true.
Also, m= -4, z= -2 are again definite values
which again satisfies (I) & (II) both but it says the question asked is false.
I still don't agree...Sorry..
Someone needs to convince me....
Suyog wrote:That's precisely what I'm trying to say, if with (I) & (II), we are getting different answer then how come its 'C'amitansu wrote:Suyog wrote:@Sudhir3127 can u please comment on Kshin78's post. Thanks!
When 'm' and 'z' are assumed; one time with +ve sign and other time with -ve sign they give no definite solution whether (m+z) >0 or not.
At times m+z>0 and at times (m+z) is <0.
I guess m=5, z=1 are definite values
When we combine two statements, we generally try to get some definite value/s or sign/s out of it to see whether it gives a definite ans always.
And that is what we get here , both "m" & "z" are positive and m>z, both satisfying two statements at the same time.
Which satisfies (I) & (II) both and it says the question asked is true.
Also, m= -4, z= -2 are again definite values
which again satisfies (I) & (II) both but it says the question asked is false.
I still don't agree...Sorry..
Someone needs to convince me....
Well, combining both statements we get both 'z' and 'm' as positive.
So we can't assume them negative.
amitansu wrote:Suyog wrote:That's precisely what I'm trying to say, if with (I) & (II), we are getting different answer then how come its 'C'amitansu wrote:Suyog wrote:@Sudhir3127 can u please comment on Kshin78's post. Thanks!
When 'm' and 'z' are assumed; one time with +ve sign and other time with -ve sign they give no definite solution whether (m+z) >0 or not.
At times m+z>0 and at times (m+z) is <0.
I guess m=5, z=1 are definite values
When we combine two statements, we generally try to get some definite value/s or sign/s out of it to see whether it gives a definite ans always.
And that is what we get here , both "m" & "z" are positive and m>z, both satisfying two statements at the same time.
Which satisfies (I) & (II) both and it says the question asked is true.
Also, m= -4, z= -2 are again definite values
which again satisfies (I) & (II) both but it says the question asked is false.
I still don't agree...Sorry..
Someone needs to convince me....
Well, combining both statements we get both 'z' and 'm' as positive.
So we can't assume them negative.
Why u r considering 'z' & 'm' as positive???
Consider
m= -4, z= -2
Now solve...
1) m-3z>0
-4 + 6 = 2, which is greater than 0
2) 4z-m<0
-8 +4 = -4, which is less than 0
doesn't value for m & z both satisfy 1 as well as 2
Now would u say that combining both statements we get both 'z' and 'm' as negative.
So we can't assume them positive.?????
moreover que doesn't say that m and v are positive...
I'm not assuming anything.....
[/quote]Why u r considering 'z' & 'm' as positive???
Consider
m= -4, z= -2
Now solve...
1) m-3z>0
-4 + 6 = 2, which is greater than 0
2) 4z-m<0
-8 +4 = -4, which is less than 0
doesn't value for m & z both satisfy 1 as well as 2
Now would u say that combining both statements we get both 'z' and 'm' as negative.
So we can't assume them positive.?????
moreover que doesn't say that m and v are positive...
I'm not assuming anything.....[/quote]
i'm so with you Suyog... i can't seem to figure it out...
the argument here is that m> 0 because z > 0. ok, true if z > 0, but WHY??? We can't assume that z > 0 when there are negative values that holds true for both equations.
Consider
m= -4, z= -2
Now solve...
1) m-3z>0
-4 + 6 = 2, which is greater than 0
2) 4z-m<0
-8 +4 = -4, which is less than 0
doesn't value for m & z both satisfy 1 as well as 2
Now would u say that combining both statements we get both 'z' and 'm' as negative.
So we can't assume them positive.?????
moreover que doesn't say that m and v are positive...
I'm not assuming anything.....[/quote]
i'm so with you Suyog... i can't seem to figure it out...
the argument here is that m> 0 because z > 0. ok, true if z > 0, but WHY??? We can't assume that z > 0 when there are negative values that holds true for both equations.
