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

Redeem

OG 11 DATA SUFFICIENCY QNO 145

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:25 am
Location: INDIA

OG 11 DATA SUFFICIENCY QNO 145

by georgy » Wed May 13, 2009 4:22 am
GMATONIANS,

PL HELP

IS 1/P > R/(R^2+2) ?

(1) P = R
(2) R > 0

ANS IS C.
I UNDERSTOOD HOW OG 11 ARRIVED AT THIS,BUT I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY MY METHOD IS WRONG, WHICH IS

SUBSTITUTING (1),
1/R > R / (R^2 + 2)
CROSS MULTIPLYING
1>R^2/(R^2 +2)
OR
(R^2 +2)/R^2 > 1
WHICH IS TRUE FOR ALL CASES OF R, + OR - , HENCE ANS IS A

WELL,WHY NOT?
Top
Source: — Data Sufficiency |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:40 am
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: OG 11 DATA SUFFICIENCY QNO 145

by Vemuri » Wed May 13, 2009 4:37 am
Because you did not consider the negative value of R. What if R<0, then the inequality will be:

R^2/(R^2+2)>1, which cannot be correct because (R^2+2) > R^2.

We need the second statement as well to answer the question.

Hope that helps.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

Re: OG 11 DATA SUFFICIENCY QNO 145

by Ian Stewart » Wed May 13, 2009 12:45 pm
georgy wrote:
SUBSTITUTING (1),
1/R > R / (R^2 + 2)
CROSS MULTIPLYING
1>R^2/(R^2 +2)
Ron just discussed this in another thread, but you can't 'cross-multiply' with inequalities unless you know whether your denominators are positive or negative. When you 'cross-multiply', you're really multiplying on both sides by both denominators. So in the above, when you cross-multiplied, you were multiplying on both sides by r^2 + 2, and by r. Well, r^2 + 2 is certainly positive, so no problem there, but r could be positive or could be negative. If r is negative, you'd need to reverse the inequality when you multiply by r on both sides. That's why you need the second statement, which guarantees that r is positive, and that you can multiply by r on both sides without needing to worry about reversing the inequality.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:25 am
Location: INDIA

OG 11 DS 145

by georgy » Mon May 18, 2009 5:04 am
I SEE,LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TODAY... THANK YOU
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Tue May 19, 2009 11:22 am
Using stament 1, can this be simplified to


2/R>0

or have I over simplified it :D
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Tue May 19, 2009 3:56 pm
iamcste wrote:Using stament 1, can this be simplified to


2/R>0

or have I over simplified it :D
Yes, that's perfect - you can even go further than that.

In detail, when we use Statement 1, we can rephrase the question, by rewriting it algebraically. Note that all we're doing is restating the question in different ways; what we're hoping to find is either:

-something we know to be true, like 2 > 0. Then we'll know we have sufficient information;
-something we don't know is true, like r > 0. Then we'll know we don't have sufficient information, and we'll know exactly what information we need.

Is 1/p > r/(r^2 + 2) ?

Using S1, this becomes:

Is 1/r > r/(r^2 + 2) ?

We can multiply by r^2 + 2, since we know that r^2 + 2 must be positive:

Is (r^2 + 2)/r > r ?
Is (r^2/r) + (2/r) > r ?
Is r + (2/r) > r ?
Is 2/r > 0 ?
Is r > 0?

And now we see why we need Statement 2 as well.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Wed May 20, 2009 9:45 am
Ian Stewart wrote:
iamcste wrote:Using stament 1, can this be simplified to


2/R>0

or have I over simplified it :D
Yes, that's perfect - you can even go further than that.

In detail, when we use Statement 1, we can rephrase the question, by rewriting it algebraically. Note that all we're doing is restating the question in different ways; what we're hoping to find is either:

-something we know to be true, like 2 > 0. Then we'll know we have sufficient information;
-something we don't know is true, like r > 0. Then we'll know we don't have sufficient information, and we'll know exactly what information we need.

Is 1/p > r/(r^2 + 2) ?

Using S1, this becomes:

Is 1/r > r/(r^2 + 2) ?

We can multiply by r^2 + 2, since we know that r^2 + 2 must be positive:

Is (r^2 + 2)/r > r ?
Is (r^2/r) + (2/r) > r ?
Is r + (2/r) > r ?
Is 2/r > 0 ?
Is r > 0?

And now we see why we need Statement 2 as well.
Thanks Ian!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1