Simplify
Is x/3+3/x > 2
Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2
Stmt I
x<3
x= -1 NO
x= 2 YES
INSUFF
Stmt II
x>1 (i.e. x is positive)
Now again the question is Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2
Multiply by 3x on both sides (doesnt affect the sign of inequality since x is positive
Therefore Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2 becomes Is x^2+9>6x or Is x^2-6x+9>0
Or Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0 or simply Is x>3 or x < -3
If x = 4 YES
If x= 3 NO
INSUFF
TOGETHER:
x is between 1 and 3 so we get a definite NO
C
Regards,
CR
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Is x/3 + 3/x > 2 ?
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
Hi Cramya,
Can you explain how did you get x < -3?
Thanks,
Vikas
Can you explain how did you get x < -3?
Thanks,
Vikas
cramya wrote:Simplify
Therefore Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2 becomes Is x^2+9>6x or Is x^2-6x+9>0
Or Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0 or simply Is x>3 or x < -3
C
Regards,
CR
Nice work Cramya, but can you solve it without plugging numbers. I need to see it algebraically please.cramya wrote:Simplify
Is x/3+3/x > 2
Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2
Stmt I
x<3
x= -1 NO
x= 2 YES
INSUFF
Stmt II
x>1 (i.e. x is positive)
Now again the question is Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2
Multiply by 3x on both sides (doesnt affect the sign of inequality since x is positive
Therefore Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2 becomes Is x^2+9>6x or Is x^2-6x+9>0
Or Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0 or simply Is x>3 or x < -3
If x = 4 YES
If x= 3 NO
INSUFF
TOGETHER:
x is between 1 and 3 so we get a definite NO
C
Regards,
CR
Abdulla
-
Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- GMAT Score:800
Actually, that solution is incorrect. The second inequality should be x < 3.mehravikas wrote:Hi Cramya,
Can you explain how did you get x < -3?
Thanks,
Vikas
cramya wrote:Simplify
Therefore Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2 becomes Is x^2+9>6x or Is x^2-6x+9>0
Or Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0 or simply Is x>3 or x < -3
C
Regards,
CR
We have:
Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0?
Well, the product of two terms is positive when both are positive or both are negative.
So, to see when that inequality holds true, we solve for those two cases:
I) x-3 > 0
x > 3
II) x-3 < 0
x < 3
Basically, the answer will be "YES" for all values of x other than 3.
So, looking at the statements in combination, since we know that 1 < x < 3, x is not 3, giving us a definite "YES" answer.
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
So basically you're saying that x could equal any number but not 3 in order to make the question true?Stuart Kovinsky wrote:Actually, that solution is incorrect. The second inequality should be x < 3.mehravikas wrote:Hi Cramya,
Can you explain how did you get x < -3?
Thanks,
Vikas
cramya wrote:Simplify
Therefore Is (x^2+9 ) / 3x > 2 becomes Is x^2+9>6x or Is x^2-6x+9>0
Or Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0 or simply Is x>3 or x < -3
C
Regards,
CR
We have:
Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0?
Well, the product of two terms is positive when both are positive or both are negative.
So, to see when that inequality holds true, we solve for those two cases:
I) x-3 > 0
x > 3
II) x-3 < 0
x < 3
Basically, the answer will be "YES" for all values of x other than 3.
So, looking at the statements in combination, since we know that 1 < x < 3, x is not 3, giving us a definite "YES" answer.
I am confused with why statement one is not sufficient. We're given that x<3 which satisfies the equation (x-3)(x-3) > 0 ------> always yes..... so why it's insufficient.
Abdulla
-
Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- GMAT Score:800
Because, as Cramya noted, we could only perform all those manipulations once we knew that x was positive; with just statement 1, negative values of x give us a "no" answer.Abdulla wrote:So basically you're saying that x could equal any number but not 3 in order to make the question true?
I am confused with why statement one is not sufficient. We're given that x<3 which satisfies the equation (x-3)(x-3) > 0 ------> always yes..... so why it's insufficient.
We need statement (2) to affirm that x is positive.
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
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- GMAT Score:770
I'd like to throw out a systematic way to handle quadratic (& cubic, quartic, etc) inequalities.Abdulla wrote:OA is C
It allows us to do all of the work before we examine the two statements:
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Thanks Brent. Useful information.Brent Hanneson wrote:I'd like to throw out a systematic way to handle quadratic (& cubic, quartic, etc) inequalities.Abdulla wrote:OA is C
It allows us to do all of the work before we examine the two statements:
Abdulla
Thanks Stuart.Stuart Kovinsky wrote:Because, as Cramya noted, we could only perform all those manipulations once we knew that x was positive; with just statement 1, negative values of x give us a "no" answer.Abdulla wrote:So basically you're saying that x could equal any number but not 3 in order to make the question true?
I am confused with why statement one is not sufficient. We're given that x<3 which satisfies the equation (x-3)(x-3) > 0 ------> always yes..... so why it's insufficient.
We need statement (2) to affirm that x is positive.
I think plugging numbers from the beginning without any manipulation is the best and easiest approach to solve this question.
Is x/3 + 3/x > 2 ?
1) x<3
plug 2 for x : 2/3 + 3/2 > 2 ----------> yes
plug 0 for x : 0/3 + 3/0 > 2 -----------> no (undefined)
2) x>1
Plug 2 for x : 2/3 + 3/2 > 2 ------------> yes
Plug 3 for x : 3/3 + 3/3 > 2 ------------> no
Combined: Any number between 1 and 3 will give a yes answer.
Abdulla
Hi Stuart,
We can say x < 3 only because we do not know whether x is +ve or -ve?
Vikas
We can say x < 3 only because we do not know whether x is +ve or -ve?
Vikas
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: We have:
Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0?
Well, the product of two terms is positive when both are positive or both are negative.
So, to see when that inequality holds true, we solve for those two cases:
I) x-3 > 0
x > 3
II) x-3 < 0
x < 3
Basically, the answer will be "YES" for all values of x other than 3.
So, looking at the statements in combination, since we know that 1 < x < 3, x is not 3, giving us a definite "YES" answer.
-
Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- GMAT Score:800
We can say that x < 3 (is one possibility) as soon as we get to the inequality:mehravikas wrote:Hi Stuart,
We can say x < 3 only because we do not know whether x is +ve or -ve?
Vikas
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: We have:
Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0?
Well, the product of two terms is positive when both are positive or both are negative.
So, to see when that inequality holds true, we solve for those two cases:
I) x-3 > 0
x > 3
II) x-3 < 0
x < 3
Basically, the answer will be "YES" for all values of x other than 3.
So, looking at the statements in combination, since we know that 1 < x < 3, x is not 3, giving us a definite "YES" answer.
(x-3) (x-3) > 0
To get to that inequality in the first place, we have to know that x is positive.
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
May be I am missing a rule completely but if we break down the inequality (x-3)(x-3) > 0 then
1. x - 3 > 0 -> x > 3
2. x - 3 > 0 -> x > 3
It would be the same if we have an inequality (x -1) (x + 5) > 0
therefore x > 1 or x > -5, here we can never say x > 1 and x < -5
I don't know whether I have given a good example, please don't mind if its a crap example because I am quite confused after seeing x > 3 or x < 3
1. x - 3 > 0 -> x > 3
2. x - 3 > 0 -> x > 3
It would be the same if we have an inequality (x -1) (x + 5) > 0
therefore x > 1 or x > -5, here we can never say x > 1 and x < -5
I don't know whether I have given a good example, please don't mind if its a crap example because I am quite confused after seeing x > 3 or x < 3
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:We can say that x < 3 (is one possibility) as soon as we get to the inequality:mehravikas wrote:Hi Stuart,
We can say x < 3 only because we do not know whether x is +ve or -ve?
Vikas
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: We have:
Is (x-3) (x-3) > 0?
Well, the product of two terms is positive when both are positive or both are negative.
So, to see when that inequality holds true, we solve for those two cases:
I) x-3 > 0
x > 3
II) x-3 < 0
x < 3
Basically, the answer will be "YES" for all values of x other than 3.
So, looking at the statements in combination, since we know that 1 < x < 3, x is not 3, giving us a definite "YES" answer.
(x-3) (x-3) > 0
To get to that inequality in the first place, we have to know that x is positive.
-
Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- GMAT Score:800
Reread the logic of my first response.
If we know that x*y > 0, there are two possibilities: both x and y are positive or both x and y are negative.
Similarly in this question, in order for (x-3)(x-3) to be positive, either both terms are positive or both terms are negative.
So, there are two cases:
1) Both positive, in which case (x-3) and (x-3) are both > 0, so:
x-3 > 0
x > 3
2) Both negative, in which case (x-3) and (x-3) are both < 0, so:
x - 3 < 0
x < 3
Therefore, that inequality will hold true whenever:
x>3 OR x<3
We can apply the same logic to the example you gave:
(x -1) (x + 5) > 0
means that either:
1) (x-1) and (x+5) are BOTH positive; or
2) (x-1) and (x+5) are BOTH negative.
Solving:
1) x-1 > 0 AND x + 5 > 0
x > 1 AND x > -5
when we have two inequalities pointing in the same direction, the one that's more limiting applies, so the first case resolves to:
x > 1
2) x-1 < 0 AND x + 5 < 0
x < 1 AND x < -5
again taking the more limiting case:
x < -5
So, the original inequality does in fact mean:
x < -5 OR x > 1
If we know that x*y > 0, there are two possibilities: both x and y are positive or both x and y are negative.
Similarly in this question, in order for (x-3)(x-3) to be positive, either both terms are positive or both terms are negative.
So, there are two cases:
1) Both positive, in which case (x-3) and (x-3) are both > 0, so:
x-3 > 0
x > 3
2) Both negative, in which case (x-3) and (x-3) are both < 0, so:
x - 3 < 0
x < 3
Therefore, that inequality will hold true whenever:
x>3 OR x<3
We can apply the same logic to the example you gave:
(x -1) (x + 5) > 0
means that either:
1) (x-1) and (x+5) are BOTH positive; or
2) (x-1) and (x+5) are BOTH negative.
Solving:
1) x-1 > 0 AND x + 5 > 0
x > 1 AND x > -5
when we have two inequalities pointing in the same direction, the one that's more limiting applies, so the first case resolves to:
x > 1
2) x-1 < 0 AND x + 5 < 0
x < 1 AND x < -5
again taking the more limiting case:
x < -5
So, the original inequality does in fact mean:
x < -5 OR x > 1
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
