# Want a 750+? Think Your Way Through This Challenge Problem!

*by*, May 24, 2013

A few months ago, I wrote a couple of articles targeted toward those students looking for a super-high score (one for quant, one for verbal). I challenged students to answer those questions in much less time than we typically average on test questions.

Well, Im back with another one in the series. This problem is a bit different though: its from our Challenge Problem archive, a question bank consisting of what we call 800+ level problems. (Some might qualify as 750+ but most are harder than anything youll ever see on the real test.)

Do you need to be able to answer a question like this in order to score 750+? Absolutely not. (In fact, after my colleague Ron Purewal submitted this question, I tested it out on several of my fellow instructors, all of whom have scored 760+ on the test. Not everyone answered correctly.) Mostly, Im offering this to stretch your brains, drive you a little crazy, and make one important point (see my second takeaway at the end).

If, however, quant is your strength and youre hoping to score 51 in that sectionyou can certainly score 51 without getting this one right, but if you *do* get this one right in 2 minutes, then you know youre ready for the quant section.

One more tidbit before we dive in. I chose this question because it is SO very hard. As of right now (as Im typing this), 254 people have tried this problem and 44 have answered it correctly.

Do a little math here. What percentage of people answered the question correctly?

17%. Random guess position is 20%. Wow.

All right, enough with the build up. Are you ready to try? The below problem is copyright ManhattanGMAT, originally published in April 2013. Kudos to Ron for thinking up this devilish problem!

* Ifxis positive, what is the value of |x- 3| - 2|x- 4| + 2|x- 6| - |x- 7|?(1)

xis an odd integer(2)

x> 6

Im not listing the five data sufficiency answer choices here. If you dont already have them memorized, then put this article away and come back to it when youre further along in your studies.

Okay, so what did you get? Im going to share two solutions with you. One is the official solution published with the problem. The other is the way that I did the problem when I first saw it. My solution method is faster and mostly only involves thinking about the problembut I chose not to write that up as the official solution because I think most people will have trouble following it, even those who are going for a 51 on quant. I have more room here, though, so Ill show you that method too.

Heres the official solution (again, copyright ManhattanGMAT):

(1) SUFFICIENT: Its impractical to take an algebraic approach to this statement; doing so would entail a large number of cases. For instance, |x- 3| is equal to 3 -xifx< 3, but is equal tox- 3 ifx> 3; similarly, the other three absolute-value expressions switch atx= 4, 6, and 7, respectively.Instead, its more efficient to consider the first three positive odd integers (1, 3, and 5) individually and then to consider only one algebraic case, the case in which

x>7 (because whenx> 7, all values are positive so we can ignore the absolute value symbols).If

x= 1, then the value is (2) 2(3) + 2(5) (6) = 0.If

x= 3, then the value is (0) 2(1) + 2(3) (4) = 0.If

x= 5, then the value is (2) 2(1) + 2(1) (2) = 0.If

x> 7, then drop the absolute value symbols and simplify:(

x- 3) 2(x- 4) + 2(x- 6) (x- 7) =

x- 3 - 2x+ 8 + 2x- 12 -x+ 7 =(

x- 2x+ 2x-x) + (-3 + 8 - 12 + 7) =0

Therefore, the value of the expression is also 0 for all values of

xgreater than or equal to 7, including the odd integers 7, 9, 11, and so on. The value of the expression is thus 0 for all positive odd integers. The statement is sufficient.(2) NOT SUFFICIENT: As determined during the discussion of statement 1, the expression is equal to 0 when

x> 7(whether odd integer, even integer, or non-integer). We still need to test the non-integer values ofxbetween 6 and 7.If

x= 6.5, then the value is (3.5) - 2(2.5) + 2(0.5) - 0.5 = 1, which is not equal to 0. The expression can thus have multiple values, so the statement is insufficient.

The correct answer is A.

Wow. Some serious work there. Take your time and go over it carefullyit might help to write out the steps yourself. Youll find it easier to understand my thinking solution below if you understand how things worked above. (Though you still wont find it easy!)

Alright, are you ready? The first thing I noticed was some interesting symmetry in the expression |*x* - 3| - 2|*x* - 4| + 2|*x* - 6| - |*x* - 7|. The problem uses four terms but skips the middle term *x* - 5. The other terms are all symmetrical around this middle term: *x* - 4 is one more and *x* - 6 is one less, for example.

Further, the pairs were discussing have constant relationships. The term *x* - 3 is always 4 larger than *x* - 7. This four-units-apart relationship will always be true, no matter the value of *x*.

Likewise, the term *x* - 4 is 2 larger than *x* - 6; these two terms are always 2 units apart. Also note that, in the expression given in the problem, these two terms are *both* multiplied by 2. This multiplication will actually preserve the symmetry and the two terms will be 4 apart rather than 2 apart.

Finally, notice the relationships between the addition and subtraction in the given expression. We add the largest term (*x* - 3) and subtract the smallest (*x* - 7). Conversely, of the other pair, we add the smaller term (*x* - 6) and subtract the larger (*x* - 4). In other words, even though the problem at first makes everything positive using those absolute value symbols, it then turns two of the terms negative again (by subtracting them instead of adding them).

Basically, *everythings*symmetrical! Wait, so does that mean that the value will always be zero no matter what? Not quite (if that were the case, we wouldnt need any statements at all to answer the question and thats not how data sufficiency works). Everything looks symmetrical so far, but theres still some key info missing.

Lets go back to that missing middle term: *x* - 5. If *x* equals 5, then this term would equal 0. The values of the two terms *x* - 3 and *x* - 7 would be symmetrical about zero (one positive and one negative). Likewise, the two terms *x* - 4 and *x* - 6 would be symmetrical about zero (one positive and one negative). (Again, the absolute value signs make all of these values positive at first, but then the *x* - 4 and *x* - 7 terms turn negative again.)

Not sure about the above case? Write out the real numbers to see how it works.

With a starting point of *x* = 5, then, the value of the expression has to be zero. This wont work the same way for every possible value for *x*, thoughthose absolute value symbols do mess things up. We need symmetry.

Either the terms need to balance perfectly (in the case *x* = 5), or the values of the four terms need to be all non-negative (0 or positive) or all non-positive (0 or negative). The four values cant cross the positive / negative barrier (except in the one perfectly balanced case, *x* = 5) or the symmetry will be messed up.

The problem told us *x* is positive. Any value of *x* < 3 would make all of the terms (*x* - 3, *x* - 4, *x* - 6, and *x* - 7) zero or negative. Therefore, those ones will return a final result of zero.

For 3 < *x* < 7, the only number that provides perfect symmetry is *x* = 5. The others mess up the symmetry and therefore wont provide a final value of zero.

For all *x* > 7, all of the terms (*x* - 3, *x* - 4, *x* - 6, and *x* - 7) will be zero or positive. Therefore, those ones will also return a final result of zero.

Take a look at the statements. Statement 1 says that *x* is odd. We know that all odd integers 3 and below will result in a final value of 0. The same is true for 5 and for all odd integers 7 and above. Statement 1 is sufficient.

Statement 2 says that *x* > 6. Anything 7 or above will result in a final value of zerobut this statement doesnt say that *x* is an integer! Any decimal between 6 and 7 will not result in a final value of zero. Statement 2 is not sufficient.

Whew. Were done. If you find that second explanation way too crazy to follow, dont worry about it. In fact, even if you think youd never get the first solution, thats okay, too. As I said, this problem is harder than anything youd see on the real testits one of the hardest in our Challenge Problem pool, and every question there is already really hard!

**Key Takeaways**

(1) You dont really need a 99^{th} percentile score. (Well not unless you want to work for us!) Im offering the above in the spirit of fun and intellectual curiosity; please dont feel that you really need to know this for the GMAT!

(2) If you are going for a super-high score, the take-away isnt that you need to be able to do problems just like this one. You should, though, be able to think or theorize your way through *some* problemsin a similar fashion to what I did in the second solution above, but for easier (though still hard!) problems.

* Challenge Problem ManhattanGMAT 2013

###### Recent Articles

###### Archive

- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009