Question
For the two equations (mv and pv) to be less than zero, then one of the variables MUST be negative and one MUST be positive. So, either v is negative and both m and p are positive, or v is positive and both m and v are negative.
Statement 1 m < p
This doesn't give us anything useful on its own. they could both be positive or both be negative and we can't tell
Insufficient
Statement 2 m < 0
This says that m is negative. As I said under the question portion, if m is negative, then v must be positive (to make mv negative). You now know your answer. Sufficient
Thinking this through a little more, you know that pv is also negative (less than 0). v has to be positive, as it is the same variable as before. So that means that p has to be negative, to make pv negative. So, if the question had been asking is p > 0, you also have an answer for that.
The answer:
I. was insufficient - II was sufficient
(B)
inequalities
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
-
ildude02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
I think the answer is "D" since both are sufficent to determine that V >0.
When we consider (i), M and P can only take negative values to satisfy all the equations. So V shall be positive.We can quicky pick some numbers to make sure,
pick nubers such that m, p> 0 = (2, 3)
it saitsfies M < P(2< 3). But we also know that mv < pv <0. Therfore v< 0 to ensure that mv <0; so if v= -1, then substituing the vlaues for mv<pv, we get -2 <-3 ; but it doesnt satisfy mv < pv
cosnider m, p <0(-2, -3). It satisfies m< p(-3 <-2) ; it also satisfies that mv < pv <0> 0.
Please let me know if it's not true and may be I'm missing something.
When we consider (i), M and P can only take negative values to satisfy all the equations. So V shall be positive.We can quicky pick some numbers to make sure,
pick nubers such that m, p> 0 = (2, 3)
it saitsfies M < P(2< 3). But we also know that mv < pv <0. Therfore v< 0 to ensure that mv <0; so if v= -1, then substituing the vlaues for mv<pv, we get -2 <-3 ; but it doesnt satisfy mv < pv
cosnider m, p <0(-2, -3). It satisfies m< p(-3 <-2) ; it also satisfies that mv < pv <0> 0.
Please let me know if it's not true and may be I'm missing something.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Ian Stewart
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- Followed by:355 members
- GMAT Score:780
ildude- you're correct: Statement 1 is sufficient on its own. As you point out, by choosing numbers you do run the risk of 'missing something'. It's a good strategy to fall back on if you can't see how to do a problem abstractly or algebraically, but when we can do a problem abstractly, we can be sure we're getting the right answer. Here, using Statement 1 alone, we know:
m < p
Now, if we multiply both sides by v, we *must* have mv > pv if v is negative (if you multiply both sides of an inequality by a negative, you must reverse the inequality), and mv < pv if v is positive. Since we know, from the question, that mv < pv, we know that v must be positive.
m < p
Now, if we multiply both sides by v, we *must* have mv > pv if v is negative (if you multiply both sides of an inequality by a negative, you must reverse the inequality), and mv < pv if v is positive. Since we know, from the question, that mv < pv, we know that v must be positive.
-
ildude02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
Great explanation! I jumped into numbers without thinking it from an "algebric" point'.Ian Stewart wrote:ildude- you're correct: Statement 1 is sufficient on its own. As you point out, by choosing numbers you do run the risk of 'missing something'. It's a good strategy to fall back on if you can't see how to do a problem abstractly or algebraically, but when we can do a problem abstractly, we can be sure we're getting the right answer. Here, using Statement 1 alone, we know:
m < p
Now, if we multiply both sides by v, we *must* have mv > pv if v is negative (if you multiply both sides of an inequality by a negative, you must reverse the inequality), and mv < pv if v is positive. Since we know, from the question, that mv < pv, we know that v must be positive.
