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 y>0?

Expert replies

by rockeyb » Sun May 09, 2010 8:24 pm
harshavardhanc wrote: rocky,

we should not subtract the inequalities. Addition is okay if the inequalities have the same sign.


see this :

1) 3 > 0
2) 7 > 0

will (1) - (2) be greater than 0? no.

we can tell that (2) - (1) > 0 BECAUSE we know that 7>3.

But in the inequality, like one above, we are not sure which one is greater because of the variables. Hence, subtraction should not be done.

HTH.
Harsha Bhai ,

What you said makes sense .

I apologies to you all as I made a silly mistake again :( . We can subtract inequalities provided what you do to one side of the inequality you do the same to the other side also .
This is where I made the mistake .

Here is some official explanation form MGAMT Maths Guide.
You can add or subtract a variable expression on both sides .

Ex :

y + x < 5
-y - y
----------------------
x < 5 - y


another example .

x - ab < 9
+ ab + ab

---------------------
x < 9 + ab
So going by this method we can not eliminate variable 'x ' in the above example and thus we can never be sure of the sign of variable 'y' .

My sincere apologies for misguiding you all .
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Sun May 09, 2010 11:17 pm
neoreaves wrote:hmmm ...ok now on second thought....we can not subtract inequalities as suggested by harsha ...though good thing we are discussing this right now to keep our concepts in check
Okay..Nero bhai....one quick suggestion..Plz post OA ..Clear of the backlogs atleast the last week's .Plz
Join the discussion

by harshavardhanc » Sun May 09, 2010 11:36 pm
here's one more post from Testluv, clearing all the concepts :

https://www.beatthegmat.com/post247288.html#247288
Regards,
Harsha
Join the discussion

by sanju09 » Mon May 10, 2010 2:55 am
neoreaves wrote:If x and y are integers and x>0, is y>0?
1. 7x-2y>0
2. -y<x
(1) is possible in more than one possibilities for y, insufficient

(2) is again true in more than one possibilities for y, insufficient

go for the amalgamation

7 x - 2 y > 0, and x > -y, hence 7 x > -7 y

now something greater than -9 y is positive, if -9 y is t for the time being, then something greater than t is positive, what can be inferred? [spoiler]quite nothing!

E
[/spoiler]
The mind is everything. What you think you become. -Lord Buddha



Sanjeev K Saxena
Quantitative Instructor
The Princeton Review - Manya Abroad
Lucknow-226001

www.manyagroup.com
Join the discussion

by debmalya_dutta » Mon May 10, 2010 4:54 pm
This was a great pointer Harsha
harshavardhanc wrote:
rockeyb wrote:
Ashish8 wrote:
rockeyb wrote: Multiply both sides by 7 -------> 7x + 7y > 0

Subtract 1 and 2

7x - 2y > 0
-7x - 7y > 0
-----------------
0 - 9y > 0


- 9y > 0 this is only possible when y < 0 .
Rocky, is this a valid operation? I don't think you can subtract inequlities like that cause at the same time you're multiplying the whole inequlity by -1. Which would make the equation:

-7x -7y < 0

This flips the sign and then a simple addition of the two equations is not possible.
Bro ,

I know we can add or subtract inequalities and equations consisting inequalities . Even we can solve simultaneous equations using inequalities .

The only operation which you need to look out for are multiplication and division by negative number as that will flip the inequality sign .

But I can see your point here . But the thing is we are not trying to multiply both sides of the equation , instead we are subtracting one equation from another .

If we multiply both sides by -1 then the sign would flip . In case of adding or subtracting inequalities we just need to line up the inequalities and perform addition and subtraction as we would do with equality sign.
rocky,

we should not subtract the inequalities. Addition is okay if the inequalities have the same sign.


see this :

1) 3 > 0
2) 7 > 0

will (1) - (2) be greater than 0? no.

we can tell that (2) - (1) > 0 BECAUSE we know that 7>3.

But in the inequality, like one above, we are not sure which one is greater because of the variables. Hence, subtraction should not be done.

HTH.
Join the discussion