Geometry

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Thanked: 653 times
Followed by:252 members

Geometry

by papgust » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:16 am
Is triangle ABC isosceles?

(1) x not equal to y
(2) AB / BC = 2

OA: C
Source: MGMAT

Please explain how the combined statement satisfies. Probably i'm missing a key concept.
Attachments
untitled.JPG
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:03 pm
Location: USA
Thanked: 21 times

by rohan_vus » Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:21 am
(1) x not equal to y
--->Its obviously insufficient..as you dont know about 3rd angle.
(2) AB / BC = 2
-->Assume AB = AC , this could be a possible is a isosceles triangle .
-->Also a triangle where,lets say AB = 2 unit , BC = 1 unit and AC = 1.5 unit is also possible .
So 2 different possibilities , hence insifficient

Combining , lets try to consider any case for isosceles and see if it works
.
Isosceles cases could 2 only , as AB = BC is ruled out based on stmnt (2) as AB = 2 BC
a) BC = AC
b) AB = AC ( This case also you can drop as stmnt (1) tells you AB is not equal to AC )

Now case (a) , lets assume BC = AC = m and AB = 2m.
Is this triangle possible , no not all . The Reason is it violates the triangle property . The third side always got be less than sum of other 2 sides and is always greater than difference of other 2 sides
Here AB = sum of other 2 sides .is equal to sum of BC and AC..So this case doesnt hold true. Ruled out


Thus with 2 stmnts we know for sure its not a isosceles triangle

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Thanked: 653 times
Followed by:252 members

by papgust » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:28 am
Wonderful explanation! Thanks.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 1:17 am

by Sue2010 » Sat May 22, 2010 2:01 am
Can you please explain why OA is not B.

Since AB = 2 BC, AC cannot be equal to BC as it will then violate the triangle property. So, in my opinion, Option B itself is sufficient to answer this question. Can someone please clarify. Thanks!

Legendary Member
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pm
Thanked: 97 times
Followed by:1 members

by liferocks » Sat May 22, 2010 4:15 am
Sue2010 wrote:Can you please explain why OA is not B.

Since AB = 2 BC, AC cannot be equal to BC as it will then violate the triangle property. So, in my opinion, Option B itself is sufficient to answer this question. Can someone please clarify. Thanks!
But AC can be equal to AB.
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 1:17 am

by Sue2010 » Sat May 22, 2010 6:19 am
Yes!!! Thank u..

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:11 am
Thanked: 1 times

by STEVEN SPIELBERG » Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 am
IMOC. Thanks Rohan_Vus & others .
I want to win an OSCAR on the GMAT !!!

Legendary Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:2 members

by kstv » Sat May 22, 2010 10:03 am
2) AB = 2BC
for ABC to be a isos. triangle
AB should be = AC (if AC = BC, then AC+BC = AB which is not possible as any two sides have to be > the third side)
but no info whether they are
1) If x° = y° then it is a isos triangle
the obverse is not suff to negate that it is not a isos triangle
Combining
x<> y so AB is <> AC so sufficient to say that it is not an isos. triangle
IMO C