Triangle / Data Sufficiency

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

Re: Triangle / Data Sufficiency

by Ian Stewart » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:54 pm
cfarrera wrote:Triangle A has sides:
1. 4x-3
2. 2x+1
3. x+8
What is the perimeter of triangle A?

(1) Triangle A is an isosceles
(2) x+8 is the greatest side


Answer is D, help!! I do not get the answer....
We know that the sum of any two sides of a triangle must be greater than the third. So we know, before even looking at the statements, that

4x - 3 + 2x + 1 > x + 8
x > 2

and

2x + 1+ x + 8 > 4x - 3
12 > x

(the third combination of sides doesn't give us anything useful). That is, 2 < x < 12.

Considering Statement 1, which pair of sides could be equal? 2x + 1 cannot be equal to 4x - 3, because then x = 2, and we know that's impossible from the analysis above. Still, the other pairs could be equal:

4x - 3 = x + 8
x = 11/3

or

2x + 1 = x + 8
x = 7

You get a different perimeter for each x, so the Statement is not sufficient.

Considering Statement 2, we know that x + 8 is greater than either of the other two sides, from which we can produce two inequalities:

x + 8 > 2x + 1
x < 7

and

x+ 8 > 4x - 3
x < 11/3

So we know that x < 11/3, and from above, we know that x > 2. Still, we can't determine the perimeter, since we only have a range of values for x. So the Statement is not sufficient.

The two Statements are clearly contradictory, so it's impossible to consider both of them together, which means there's something wrong with the question. Where is it from?
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:15 pm

Thanks Ian

by cfarrera » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:25 am
Thanks Ian, the problem did not make sense to me either, I got the problem from a friend who took a GMAT workshop but probably is incorrect...

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:05 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by nasa » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:00 pm
Ian your analysis was great. However, a small correction to your conclusion that 1 is insufficient.
x = 11/3 or 7
=> the three sides are (35/3,35/3,25/3) or (15,15,25)
Given the contraint that 2 < x < 12 leaves us with x = 11/3
So (1) is sufficient.

(2) This says x+8 >= 4x-3 and x+8 >= 2x+1
This only gives a range but not a specific value. So insuff.
However, I don't see why 1 and 2 are contradictory.

IMO A

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:50 pm
nasa wrote:Ian your analysis was great. However, a small correction to your conclusion that 1 is insufficient.
x = 11/3 or 7
=> the three sides are (35/3,35/3,25/3) or (15,15,25)
Given the contraint that 2 < x < 12 leaves us with x = 11/3
So (1) is sufficient.
I think you might have confused the value of x with the lengths of the sides. We know that 2 < x < 12, which means that x can be 7, and x can be 11/3. When x = 7, it's true that this produces sides which are longer than 12, but the inequality provides a minimum and maximum for x itself, not for the lengths of the sides of the triangle.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:05 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by nasa » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:54 pm
I figured that later... Sorry abt that.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:58 am

by GmatGreen » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:09 pm
Thanks for the great explanation Ian.

I tend to be wary of questions that are not from official sources (for the most part anyway)