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)
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
inequalities
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
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
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- 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.
The ans is D.
from 1) v cannot be -ve.
if you substitute a -ve no for v and using m<p then mv<pv will not hold.
thus v has to be positive..
and 2) is suff also.
Thus, D
from 1) v cannot be -ve.
if you substitute a -ve no for v and using m<p then mv<pv will not hold.
thus v has to be positive..
and 2) is suff also.
Thus, D
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.
