Check this solution from Ron,
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/is- ... t4202.html

papgust wrote:Check this solution from Ron,
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/is- ... t4202.html

Jus saw the solution there..

====
the particular trap you've fallen into in your interpretation of (2) is that of assuming "-s" is to the LEFT of "t". there is no good reason whatsoever to make this assumption, and, what's more, at least one good reason (viz., "the gmat loves to test exactly these sorts of assumptions) not to make it.
of course, you don't need reasons to be very careful about your assumptions; that should be your default state.

if "-s" is to the right of "t", then you have
<--r-------s---t-----------(-s)-->
in which case 0 is in no-man's-land between "t" and "-s".
in this case, note that "s" is negative. also note that (-s) is positive in this case, a situation that is difficult to digest for most students

===
i wanna know, how can the distance between t and -s be equal to the distance between t and r when -s is to the LEFT of "t"
my assumption is that -s could not be on the right of t for the distance between t and r to be same as distance between t and -s

Can somebody pls help here?

how can the distance between t and -s be equal to the distance between t and r when -s is to the LEFT of "t"
my assumption is that -s could not be on the right of t for the distance between t and r to be same as distance between t and -s