If mv<pv<0, is v>0
1. m<p
2. m<0
I would love to get your response (especially Ian's if he is available).
In an old link (that I can no longer find), Tatiana Becker explained that 1. is not sufficient ........."This is not sufficient info. to find out if the two numbers are negative or positive, though."
My reasoning:
We have three inequalities in the question stem, including
mv<pv
since V is not 0, we can divide v out of mv and pv and be left with m<p. Unless v is negative, the sign should not change.
1. tells us that m<p. Does this not answer the question that v is positive? (Had it been negative, the signs would have changed).
I am sure that I am missing something here but just can't figure it out.
Thanks everyone.
1. m<p
2. m<0
I would love to get your response (especially Ian's if he is available).
In an old link (that I can no longer find), Tatiana Becker explained that 1. is not sufficient ........."This is not sufficient info. to find out if the two numbers are negative or positive, though."
My reasoning:
We have three inequalities in the question stem, including
mv<pv
since V is not 0, we can divide v out of mv and pv and be left with m<p. Unless v is negative, the sign should not change.
1. tells us that m<p. Does this not answer the question that v is positive? (Had it been negative, the signs would have changed).
I am sure that I am missing something here but just can't figure it out.
Thanks everyone.
