Is pqr >0 ?

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Houston
Thanked: 1 times

Is pqr >0 ?

by smar83 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:48 pm
Is pqr>0 ?

1)pq>0

2)q/r <0

My Approach:

Statment 1: p and q have same sign ( either +ve or -ve), but it does not tell us anything about r, so statment A is not sufficient.

Statment 2: either q or r has -ve sign, but does not tell us anything about P, statment B is not sufficient.

Hence D is not sufficient either. Now let us take both statments together..

If we consider, p and q to be positive from statment 1, then r is -ve from statment 2 ? hence pqr is not greater than zero.

Similarly, if we consider p and q to be -ve then r is +ve, hence pqr is not greater than zero.

They have just asked us, if pqr > 0 ? I guess ( C ) helps us determine it. They have not asked us the value of p,q or r, it can be anything and that should not matter.

But the OA is something else. Please help.
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:34 pm

by woo » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:07 pm
We agree that it's not A, B or D.

Condition 1 says both p and q are positive or negative.

Condition 2 says when q is negative r is positive and vice versa.

Combining the two we know that

when q is negative and r is positive p is negative thus, pqr = positive

coz p and r should have different signs whereas p and q should have a same sign.

However, when q is positive r is negative and p is positive making pqr = negative because of the same reasoning like above.

Therefore the answer is E.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Houston
Thanked: 1 times

by smar83 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:12 pm
Thanks. I realized it after posting that, When q is negative then r is positive, but the it also makes p negative.

I missed this point somehow...

Thanks anways...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:30 am
Thanked: 19 times

by bharathh » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:14 pm
E

Neither statement helps