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
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
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.

One more problem on absolute value

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by papgust » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:22 pm
Well, the question can be phrased as "Is -1<x<1?". Let's look at the statements.

A. x / |x| < x

We have 2 cases here,
Case 1: If x < 0, then x / -x < x. x > -1.
Case 2: If x > 0, then x / x < x. x > 1.

Case 1 & 2 doesn't tell us whether -1<x<1. Insufficient.

B. |x| > x

Again, we have 2 cases here.
Case 1: If x < 0, then -x > x --> 2x < 0 --> x < 0
Case 2: If x > 0, then x > x. This solution is not possible.
So, we only know that x < 0. But we still do not know whether -1 < x < 1. Insufficient.

Combined,
From (A), we have 2 case (x > 0 and x < 0). From (B), we have only 1 case (x < 0)

From (A), we will take case (1) which is x > -1. And, we also know that x < 0. So, x lies between -1 and 0 (which answers the question -1 < x < 1).
Sufficient.

Hence, it should be C. Please share the OA
Join the discussion

by getso » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:38 pm
amazing reply papgust. Yes, OA is C.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation.

Regards,
Shobha
Join the discussion

by amittilak » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:25 am
getso wrote:If x is not equal to 0, is |x| less than 1?

(1) x/|x| < x

(2) |x| > x

is lxl < 1 ??
Now lxl is always positive and what positive number, not equal to zero, is less than 1
Now, I rephrased the question as:
Is x a negative fraction ('coz it's given that x is not equal to zero)

S1. lxl is either -x or x. Lets look at both cases:
if lxl = -x, then x/-x < x
or -1<x
However this means that x could be a negative fraction or positive number Not suff.

S2 lxl > x this is easy to translate.
This means that x is a negative number (negative integer or negative fraction) hence not suff.

S1 + S2 tells us that x could be -ve fraction/+ve number or -ve fraction/-ve integer
Intersection of both is negative fraction. Hence suff.
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
getso wrote:If x is not equal to 0, is |x| less than 1?

(1) x/|x| < x

(2) |x| > x
|x| < 1 => -1<x<1

1. x < x|x| => x(1-|x|) < 0 => x>0 1<|x| or x<0 1>|x| so two cases.
2. |x| > x => x<0,

Combining 1&2: x<0 and so |x|<1 so C
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Join the discussion