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
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
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.

Is m+z > 0?

Expert replies

by Deepthi Subbu » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:13 am
Even after we figure out that z>0, to find the if m is also > 0, we may substitute the value of z is each of the 2 equations -

1) m-3z > 0

Since m> 3z, m is greater than 0. Hence m+z>0.
(2) 4z-m > 0

4z>m.

Say z=1, m<4, so if m is negative say -10 , m+z < 0
Say m=3 , m<4, so m+z>0.

Hence shouldnt the OA be E ?
Join the discussion

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:42 am
Deepthi Subbu wrote:
Is m + z > 0?

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

Here's my complete solution . . .
Target question: Is m + z > 0?

Statement 1: m - 3z > 0
There are several sets of numbers that meet this condition. Here are two:
Case a: m = 4 and z = 1, in which case m + z is greater than 0
Case a: m = 4 and z = -10, in which case m + z is not greater than 0
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, statement 1 is NOT SUFFICIENT

Statement 2: 4z - m > 0
There are several sets of numbers that meet this condition. Here are two:
Case a: m = 1 and z = 4, in which case m + z is greater than 0
Case a: m = -10 and z = 1, in which case m + z is not greater than 0
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, statement 2 is NOT SUFFICIENT

Statements 1 and 2 combined:
Rearrange statement 1 to get: -3z + m > 0
Statement 2: 4z - m > 0
Since both inequality signs are facing the same direction, we can add the two given inequalities to get: z > 0
In other words, z is positive.

If z is positive, then 3z is positive, and if 3z is positive then m must be positive (since we know that 3z < m)

If z and m are both positive, then m + z must be greater than 0
Since we can answer the target question with certainty, the combined statements are SUFFICIENT

Answer = C

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

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:49 am
Deepthi Subbu wrote: Say z=1, m<4, so if m is negative say -10 , m+z < 0
Say m=3 , m<4, so m+z>0.

Hence shouldnt the OA be E ?
The part in green is not right.

Statement 1 says that m - 3z > 0
So, it cannot be the case that z = 1 and m = -10 (as you suggest above)
If we plug these values into the left side of the inequality, we get:
-10 - (3)(1)
= -13
And it is not the case that -13 > 0

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

by lunarpower » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:31 am
if anyone is in the mood for a fireworks show --
once you get to the (c) vs. (e) part... try multiplying statement 1 by 5, multiplying statement 2 by 4, and then adding the stuff you get.
sha-boom!
like a boss.

(this is not my recommended way of solving the problem... but it's awesome.)
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by faraz_jeddah » Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:52 am
lunarpower wrote:if anyone is in the mood for a fireworks show --
once you get to the (c) vs. (e) part... try multiplying statement 1 by 5, multiplying statement 2 by 4, and then adding the stuff you get.
sha-boom!
like a boss.

(this is not my recommended way of solving the problem... but it's awesome.)
Word!
Join the discussion

by Nina1987 » Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:17 pm
Ron,
Is there a systematic way of coming up with such multiples?
Also what is your recommended way of solving such questions? Thank you
lunarpower wrote:if anyone is in the mood for a fireworks show --
once you get to the (c) vs. (e) part... try multiplying statement 1 by 5, multiplying statement 2 by 4, and then adding the stuff you get.
sha-boom!
like a boss.

(this is not my recommended way of solving the problem... but it's awesome.)
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:49 pm
Nina1987 wrote: Is there a systematic way of coming up with such multiples?
Yup, just look for the multiples that will give you coefficients that cancel out upon summation, if such multiples exist.

For instance, here you're looking for two numbers r and s such that

rm - sm = m

4sz - 3rz = z

i.e. r - s = 1 and 4s - 3r = 1. This works for r = 5 and s = 4, so those are our multipliers.
Join the discussion

by Scott@TargetTestPrep » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:17 pm
ksutthi wrote:Got this from practice test 1. Can somebody help?

Is m+z > 0?

(1) m-3z > 0
(2) 4z-m > 0
We must determine whether the sum of m and z is greater than zero.

Statement One Alone:

m - 3z > 0

We can manipulate the inequality in statement one to read: m > 3z

However, we still cannot determine whether the sum of m and z is greater than zero. Statement one alone is insufficient to answer the question. We can eliminate answer choices A and D.

Statement Two Alone:

4z - m > 0

We can manipulate the inequality in statement two to read: 4z > m

However, we still cannot determine whether the sum of m and z is greater than zero. Statement two alone is insufficient to answer the question. We can eliminate answer choice B.

Statements One and Two Together:

Using our statements together, we can add together our two inequalities. Rewriting statement 2 as -m + 4z > 0, we have

m - 3z > 0
+ (-m +4z > 0)
z > 0

Since we know that z > 0 and that m > 3z (from statement one), m must also be greater than zero. Thus, the sum of m and z is greater than zero.

Answer: C

Scott Woodbury-Stewart
Founder and CEO
[email protected]

Image

See why Target Test Prep is rated 5 out of 5 stars on BEAT the GMAT. Read our reviews

ImageImage
Join the discussion