Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Help with this one

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Re: Help with this one

by jayhawk2001 » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:48 pm
aninditasivaram2406 wrote:1. If x and y are integers and x>0, is y>0?
·7x-2y>0
·-y>x
Answer E
I would say B is sufficient. -y>x implies y < -x. Given that x is positive,
y has to be negative. I hope I'm not missing something obvious
Join the discussion

I agree

by aninditasivaram2406 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:24 am
Hi Jayhawk,

Thats what I had thought. But the answer appears to be E. This is from GMAT prep...any thoughts?

Thanks,
Anindita
Join the discussion

by enlightenment » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:57 pm
The question only states that x and y are integers. Therefore, substitute positive AND negative values and zero for x.

In statement 2: "-y>x" can also be written as "y<x>0" Simplify to get "y<-7x/2." Again try plugging positive and negative values for x. We get the same result as statement 2. Insufficient.

Combining Statements 1 and 2 they pretty much say the same thing as they do individually, only that statement 1 has a multiplier of 7/2. Statements 1 and 2 taken together are not sufficient. (E)


I always forget to check for +, -, and 0 on DS questions myself.
Join the discussion

by ri2007 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:00 am
enlightenment wrote:The question only states that x and y are integers. Therefore, substitute positive AND negative values and zero for x.

In statement 2: "-y>x" can also be written as "y<x>0" Simplify to get "y<-7x/2." Again try plugging positive and negative values for x. We get the same result as statement 2. Insufficient.

Combining Statements 1 and 2 they pretty much say the same thing as they do individually, only that statement 1 has a multiplier of 7/2. Statements 1 and 2 taken together are not sufficient. (E)


I always forget to check for +, -, and 0 on DS questions myself.
enlightenment, the question also says that both X & Y are greater than 0. So we cannot assume a -ve value for eithe x or y
Join the discussion

by enlightenment » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:25 am
ri2007 wrote:
enlightenment wrote:The question only states that x and y are integers. Therefore, substitute positive AND negative values and zero for x.

In statement 2: "-y>x" can also be written as "y<x>0" Simplify to get "y<-7x/2." Again try plugging positive and negative values for x. We get the same result as statement 2. Insufficient.

Combining Statements 1 and 2 they pretty much say the same thing as they do individually, only that statement 1 has a multiplier of 7/2. Statements 1 and 2 taken together are not sufficient. (E)


I always forget to check for +, -, and 0 on DS questions myself.
enlightenment, the question also says that both X & Y are greater than 0. So we cannot assume a -ve value for eithe x or y
wow...perfect example of why you should read the question stem completely.
Join the discussion

Confused :(

by aninditasivaram2406 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:45 am
now i am confused! please can someone tell me what is the correct answer to this one? Thanks!
Join the discussion

by enlightenment » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:21 am
Anonymous wrote:
enlightenment wrote:The question only states that x and y are integers. Therefore, substitute positive AND negative values and zero for x.
This is where the gap in logic is hitting me. The question states that x > 0. So why are you subbing in 0 and negatives when they don't exist for x?
Read above. I did not read the question stem correctly.

on a side note. i need to remember to turn the html in the post off. When you use < or > the forum thinks you are writing htmp tags and changes your text a little. And i really am not following what i wrote last night, either. I must have been pretty tired because i am some how mixing the two statements together. Sorry for the confusion.
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:29 pm
Now, that the enlightened one :) has cleared the air about his post .. can we agree on an answer ?? .. what does thou say oh enlightened one :) .. B or E ..
Join the discussion

by enlightenment » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:34 pm
gabriel wrote:Now, that the enlightened one :) has cleared the air about his post .. can we agree on an answer ?? .. what does thou say oh enlightened one :) .. B or E ..
B
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:36 pm
B for me too ..
Join the discussion