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
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.

mode inequality

Expert replies
Source: — Problem Solving |

by Atekihcan » Wed May 22, 2013 10:12 pm
Statement 1: The following two cases are possible,
<----------r----s-----------t--------->
<----------s----r-----------t--------->

So, r may or may not lie between s and t.
So, statement 1 is not sufficient.

Statement 2: This means distance between r and s is greater than the distance between s and t.
So, it is not possible that r is between s and t.
So, statement 2 is sufficient.

Answer : B
Join the discussion

by vipulgoyal » Wed May 22, 2013 10:22 pm
thanks very well explained just wondering is there any algebric way to check if we havent misseed any possible positions of r,s,t on number line , I mean by opening mode with real values or abslute values
Join the discussion

by Atekihcan » Wed May 22, 2013 10:29 pm
vipulgoyal wrote:thanks very well explained just wondering is there any algebric way to check if we havent misseed any possible positions of r,s,t on number line , I mean by opening mode with real values or abslute values
Off course there is.
But absolute value problems are better solved by interpreting them as the distances on the number line. That way it is much easier and less time consuming than algebraic method.

And for this particular problem, algebraic approach, i.e. opening absolute value brackets and considering all possible scenarios separately will be a mess. (Just thinking of the scenario sends shivers down my spine :oops: )
Join the discussion

by vipulgoyal » Wed May 22, 2013 10:42 pm
hi atekihcan following same way as shown by you, just wanted to make sure the ans of the following inequality is C
Whether S is in between R and T?
(1) | R - T | > | R - S |
(2) | R - T | > | T - S |
Join the discussion

by Atekihcan » Wed May 22, 2013 10:56 pm
vipulgoyal wrote:hi atekihcan following same way as shown by you, just wanted to make sure the ans of the following inequality is C
Whether S is in between R and T?
(1) | R - T | > | R - S |
(2) | R - T | > | T - S |
Yes, indeed.

For statement 1, following scenarios are possible...
<--------r----s---------t--------->
<----s---r--------------t--------->


For statement 2, following scenarios are possible...
<--------r----------s---t--------->
<--------r--------------t---s----->

Both statements together, distance between r and t is greater than both the distances between r and s and s and t. So, s must be between r and t.

So, both statements together is sufficient.

Answer : C
Join the discussion