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 r > s ?

Expert replies
by November Rain » Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:06 pm
Hi guys. This sounds like a simple question but i actually can't understand it:

Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0

(2) r < | s |


The OA is A but to me it should be D

The first statement is easy to see why.

The second however, is the one which is giving me a hard time to understand why it isn't enough:

If r < | s | then r < s or r > - s

So, for this condition to be true then -s < r < s. So this is sufficient to determine that r < s

The source of this question is the DS 1000 file.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by student22 » Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:22 pm
Let's pick number for statement 2. Let r = -2, and let s = -1.

-2 < |-1| or -2 < 1

However, -2 is not > -1. Not Sufficient. Remember for weird problems like this to pick negative numbers.
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:15 pm
student22 wrote:Let's pick number for statement 2. Let r = -2, and let s = -1.

-2 < |-1| or -2 < 1

However, -2 is not > -1. Not Sufficient. Remember for weird problems like this to pick negative numbers.
Picking numbers is a great idea - unfortunately the numbers you picked only show that you can get a "yes" answer; to disprove a statement we need both a "yes" AND a "no".

You chose r=-2 and s=-1; is -2 < -1? YES.

We can also choose r=2 and s=-5, since:

2 < |-5|

is 2 < -5? NO.

Now that we have both a yes and a no answer, we see that (2) is insufficient.
If r < | s | then r < s or r > - s
The math here is off - let's go through it.

r < |s| can be broken down into two cases:

1st: r < +s

and

2nd: r < -s

You reversed the inequality in the second solution, but there's no reason to do so. We only reverse the inequality if we're multiplying or dividing both sides by a negative, which there's no reason to do in this particular example.

If were were to multiply both sides of the second equation by -1, you'd get:

2nd: -r > s

which doesn't allow us to join the two inequalities together, since one centres around "r" and the other around "-r".

The best way to handle statement (2) is via either logic or picking numbers.

Using logic, r < |s| means that r is closer to 0 on the number line than is s. However, we have no idea on which side of 0 they lie, so we don't know which one is bigger. All of the following are possible:

-- s ---- r--- 0

------r---0----------s

--s--------0--r--------

-----0----r--------s

As you can see, in two of the cases we have r>s, in two we have s>r, so we can't definitively answer the question based on statement (2).
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

by November Rain » Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:17 pm
Hi, thanks for your answer.

I also noticed that my equation is wrong: it should be r < s or r < -s.

But anyway, the best way to solve this is indeed to pick values.
Join the discussion

by ssuarezo » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:39 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
You chose r=-2 and s=-1; is -2 < -1? YES.

We can also choose r=2 and s=-5, since:

2 < |-5|, is 2 < -5? NO.

Now that we have both a yes and a no answer, we see that (2) is insufficient.
If r < | s | then r < s or r > - s
The math here is off - let's go through it.

r < |s| can be broken down into two cases:

1st: r < +s

and

2nd: r < -s

You reversed the inequality in the second solution, but there's no reason to do so. We only reverse the inequality if we're multiplying or dividing both sides by a negative, which there's no reason to do in this particular example.
Hi Stuart:

Now, I'm confused. Please, check this video: https://www.ehow.com/video_4756710_solvi ... ities.html
The guy inverses the inequality sign for his absolute value problem, so |x+2| > 5 becomes x>3 and x< -7.
Big question: In which cases should I reverse the inequality?? Is the guy on the video wrong??

Thanks
Silvia
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:32 am
ssuarezo wrote: Hi Stuart:

Now, I'm confused. Please, check this video: https://www.ehow.com/video_4756710_solvi ... ities.html
The guy inverses the inequality sign for his absolute value problem, so |x+2| > 5 becomes x>3 and x< -7.
Big question: In which cases should I reverse the inequality?? Is the guy on the video wrong??

Thanks
Silvia
I haven't watched the video, but when solving absolute values, especially those involving inequalites, you should always break the absolute value into the positive and negative case. Then, depending on exactly what you're solving for, you may end up swapping the inequality.

Using the example you cited:

|x+2|>5

we look at two cases:

+(x+2) > 5 and -(x+2) > 5

Solving the first:

x + 2 > 5
(subtract 2 from both sides)
x > 3

Solving the second:

-x - 2 > 5
(add 2 to both sides)
-x > 7
(multiply both sides by -1, which swaps the inequality)
x < -7

Automatically swapping the inequality can lead to a lot of confusion, so it's just safer all-around to go step by step.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

by ssuarezo » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:10 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: I haven't watched the video, but when solving absolute values, especially those involving inequalites, you should always break the absolute value into the positive and negative case. Then, depending on exactly what you're solving for, you may end up swapping the inequality.

Using the example you cited:

|x+2|>5

we look at two cases:

+(x+2) > 5 and -(x+2) > 5

Solving the first:

x + 2 > 5
(subtract 2 from both sides)
x > 3

Solving the second:

-x - 2 > 5
(add 2 to both sides)
-x > 7
(multiply both sides by -1, which swaps the inequality)
x < -7

Automatically swapping the inequality can lead to a lot of confusion, so it's just safer all-around to go step by step.
The clearest explanation. Thank you so much Stuart.
Silvia
Join the discussion