If mv < pv < 0, is v > 0 ?
(1) m < p
(2) m < 0
please explanations
inequalities
This topic has expert replies
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)
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)
-
- 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: 2621
- 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.
-
- 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.