-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Know the GMAT Code: Exponents
How well do you know how to decipher the key clues that the test writers hide in GMAT problems? To get a really high score on this test, youve got to Know the Code in order to make your way through the toughest problems.
If this is your first introduction to the Know the Code idea, follow the link in that last paragraph to learn more. Then, come back here and practice your newfound skill on the problem below from the free GMATPrep exams.
Here you go:
*If [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]y^2[/pmath] > [pmath]z^4[/pmath], which of the following statements could be true?I. [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]y[/pmath] > [pmath]z[/pmath]
II. [pmath]z[/pmath] > [pmath]y[/pmath] > [pmath]x[/pmath]
III. [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]z[/pmath] > [pmath]y[/pmath]
(A) I only
(B) I and II only
(C) I and III only
(D) II and III only
(E) I, II, and III
Ready? Lets do this!
Glance at the problem. PS. Roman numeral ugh. I may have to jump through a few more hoops than usual on this one. At this point, glance at the math. If it looks super hard and its a Roman numeral, then this might be a very good time to bail.
In fact, this problem can easily turn into a nightmare if you dont pick up on some Know the Code clues to help you make the solution process a bit more manageable. (Even then, this is still a hard one.)
Lets start getting this down on paper.
I double-checked everything after I wrote it down. Those statements are too close to each other; I dont want to get this wrong just because I made a mistake transcribing them.
Think about whats going on here (reflect!). Whats the best approach?
Whats the significance of the fact that [pmath]x[/pmath] is greater than [pmath]y^2[/pmath]? What needs to be true of these two numbers? And then the same question for the next bit: [pmath]y^2[/pmath] > [pmath]z^4[/pmath].
All right, now youre allowed to do some Work. :) Play around with some real numbers to understand the significance of the inequalities. (This is more formally called Testing Cases.)
Remember: youre only allowed to try numbers that make the given inequality, [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]y^2[/pmath] > [pmath]z^4[/pmath], true. (Note: + int is my abbreviation for positive integer.)
First, I tried just [pmath]x[/pmath] and [pmath]y[/pmath] to make sure I understood what was happening. Then I added in [pmath]z[/pmath] and fully tested the problem. Statement I can be true. Take a look at the answer choices. Cross off answer (D).
Weve tried the easiest case: theyre all positive integers. What else could we try that might make statements II or III true?
Reflect again: heres where we need to Know the Code. Whenever you see an exponents Theory problem (like this one) where certain of the variables + exponents are greater than other ones, ask yourself: what are the weird cases when working with exponents?
Normally, when you square something, it gets larger. Thats true for all positive numbers greater than 1. Its also true for all negative numbers.
Its not true, though, for 0, 1, and fractions between 0 and 1. So heres where we may find cases in which statements II or III are true.
0 and 1 both stay the same when theyre raised to a power. Fractions between 0 and 1 get smaller. Glance at the statements: statement II is the reverse of statement I, which did work with positive integers. So maybe statement II will work with fractions between 0 and 1, which do the reverse of positive integers with respect to exponents?
Before, we made z the smallest integer, then [pmath]y[/pmath], and then [pmath]x[/pmath]. Can we reverse that trend if we use fractions instead?
It worked! Statement II could be true, too. Cross off answers (A) and (C). Now, were down to answers (B) and (E). Can we make statement III work?
This is going to be the tough one. Is there a way to get [pmath]z[/pmath]to jump in the middle, between [pmath]x[/pmath]and [pmath]y[/pmath]?
The first case used all positive integers and the second used all fractions between 0 and 1. To get the variables to work in the jumbled order of statement III, were probably going to have to jumble the characteristics of the numbers we try.
And we still, of course, can only try numbers that make [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]y^2[/pmath] > [pmath]z^4[/pmath]true.
Hmm. How to make [pmath]x[/pmath]be the largest but have [pmath]z[/pmath]be greater than [pmath]y[/pmath]?
The borderline numbers are 0 and 1, so lets try putting the middle number, [pmath]y^2[/pmath], on a borderline number, [pmath]y=1[/pmath].
Now, [pmath]x[/pmath]has to be greater than 1. Lets call that 2. And [pmath]z^4[/pmath] has to be smaller than 1, so lets call [pmath]z=1/2[/pmath].
[pmath]x = 2[/pmath]
[pmath]y = 1[/pmath]
[pmath]z = 1/2[/pmath]
Whoops. That doesnt make [pmath]z[/pmath] greater than [pmath]y[/pmath].
What if [pmath]x[/pmath]is an integer but both [pmath]y[/pmath]and [pmath]z[/pmath]are fractions?
[pmath]x = 1[/pmath]
[pmath]y = 1/2[/pmath] (so[pmath]y^2 = 1/4[/pmath])
So[pmath]z^4[/pmath] would have to be smaller than [pmath]1/4[/pmath]even though z is greater than [pmath]y[/pmath]. Is that possible?
Sure! Try something just a bit larger than [pmath]y = 1/2[/pmath].
[pmath]z = 2/3[.pmath]
[pmath]z^4= 16 / 81[/pmath]
I have no idea what that fraction is in decimal form, but I know that [pmath]1/4[/pmath]is 0.25 and I know that [pmath]16/81[/pmath]has to be less than 0.25 because 0.25 would be about [pmath]20/80[/pmath].
To recap:
[pmath]x = 1[.pmath]
[pmath]y = 1/2[/pmath] (so[pmath]y^2 = 1/4[/pmath])
[pmath]z = 2/3[/pmath] (so[pmath]z^4= 16 / 81[/pmath])
[pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]y^2[/pmath] > [pmath]z^4[/pmath] Yes
III. [pmath]x[/pmath] > [pmath]z[/pmath] > [pmath]y[/pmath]True!
The correct answer is (E). Statements I, II, and III could all be true.
You could get sucked into trying a million different sets of numbers on this one and still not find your way to the precise type of numbers you need to make statement III work. We didnt even bother to try negative numbers on this one, even though normally Id think of negatives right after positives when testing cases. I didnt bother, though, because negatives do the same thing as positive integers (or positives greater than 1) when youre raising to even powers.
This is where the Code is so crucial: if you know that exponents get all weird when youre dealing with 0, 1, or fractions between 0 and 1, then youll have a much more targeted approach.
Key Takeaways for Knowing the Code:
(1) Use the clues in the problem to help you know what to try. These clues will always be there! You just have to learn how to read them.
(2) Here are the Know the Code takeaways that I came up with for this problem (make your own flash cards in your own words!):
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.
Recent Articles
Archive
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- 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