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
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 28
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

15 live classes from Sep 28, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & 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.

Kaplan question

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Testluv » Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:19 am
(1) is clearly insufficient.

(2) is different. We know from the question that y is positive or zero.

Absolute value is always positive or zero. But if y were positive, then "-y" is negative, which means that |x-3| would also be negative (either equal to -y or less than -y--either way, it would be negative).

Thus, y cannot be positive. Thus, y is zero, which means (2) is really saying:

|x-3| = 0, which is solveable for x.

Choose B.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion

by singhsa » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:31 am
Testluv wrote:(1) is clearly insufficient.

(2) is different. We know from the question that y is positive or zero.

Absolute value is always positive or zero. But if y were positive, then "-y" is negative, which means that |x-3| would also be negative (either equal to -y or less than -y--either way, it would be negative).

Thus, y cannot be positive. Thus, y is zero, which means (2) is really saying:

|x-3| = 0, which is solveable for x.

Choose B.
For the first case, we're given |x-3|>=y. If we open up the mod, we get -x+3>=y and x-3>=y.
This ultimately results in 3+y<=x<=3-y. Clearly, this is only possible if y=0 since y cannot be negative.

Does'nt this lead to the same conclusion as statement (2) ?
Join the discussion

by Testluv » Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:59 pm
When we open up the mod, we have 2 alternative inequalities--not joint inequalities. That is, it is either one inequality OR the other (not AND the other). Thus, we cannot combine them in that manner.

In other words, from (1), we know that

x-3>=y

or

-(x-3)>=y or x-3<=-y

Neither of these two inequalities allows us to compute x (because we don't know y's value).

However, (2) is different because we know that |x-3| = pos or zero. (|x-3| cannot be equal to a negative number for distance cannot be negative.) But if y were a positive number, then we would have |x-3|<= neg. Which is impossible. Thus, y cannot be positive, and since the question stem ruled out the possibility of y being negative, y must be zero.

Thus, |x-3| = 0. |a-b| is always "the distance between "a" and "b" on the number line." So, |x-3| = 0 means that "x is 0 units away from 3 on the number line" or in other words "x must be 3".
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion