BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start 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

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Gmat prep not happy with OA !

Expert replies
by mazwaz » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:10 am
is m + z > 0 ?

(1) m - 3z > 0
(2) 4z - m > 0

Clearly each statement alone is not sufficient!!!
and together we get : 3z < m < 4z
so if z = -2 then m + z < 0
if z = 2 then m + z > 0

I don't understand how it can't be OA E ???
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:23 am
mazwaz wrote:is m + z > 0 ?

(1) m - 3z > 0
(2) 4z - m > 0

Clearly each statement alone is not sufficient!!!
and together we get : 3z < m < 4z
so if z = -2 then m + z < 0
if z = 2 then m + z > 0

I don't understand how it can't be OA E ???
This is a tricky question.
Let's start with your (very correct) conclusion that 3z < m < 4z
Notice that we can use this to conclude that 3z < 4z
From here, if we subtract 3z from both sides, we get 0 < z
In other words, z is positive.
If z is positive, then 3z is positive, and since 3z < m, we know that m is positive.

If z and m are both positive, then m+x > 0, so the answer is C.

Aside: notice that z cannot equal -2 (as you suggested) since that would contradict the fact that 3z < 4z

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Join the discussion

by mazwaz » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:27 am
ohh yeah I didn't see that!!
Now it is clear!
Thanks for your quick reply!!!
Join the discussion

by HSPA » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:52 pm
Add the two statements: m-3z+4z-m >0 => z > 0

Now using m-3z>0 => m > 3Z => m is +ve, z is positive

thus m+z is +ve... IMO C
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by force5 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:07 am
z>0 gives C
Join the discussion