(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.
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
Kaplan question
Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency |
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.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.
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) ?
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".
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
