Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

Solving DS questions with absolute value equations??

Expert replies
by Auzbee » Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:11 pm
How do you solve such questions in less than 2 mins? Is there a quick strategy to solve DS questions that involve absolute value in equations?

If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a – b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

I would appreciate useful tips for such questions.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by camitava » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:37 am
Auzbee,
There is a typo, man! I am not being able to understand about the second option - ab 0. What does it signify?
However, for a clarity I can suggest you a way to solve this kind of prob [Appears easier to me]. This type of problem really creates a confusion between positive and negatives. For worst, if a, b < 0, then a < b. And a . |b| is coming as less than a - b (As a & b are -ve, so the actual equation becomes -a + b). It is also true for b > 0 and a < 0.
If the second option says that a,b < 0 the above condition becomes true once again.
If the second option says that a, b > 0 then a . |b| becomes greater than a - b. But you can come to conclusion whether a . |b| < or > a - b. So I think OA is D [If and only if the second option is what I have assumed.].
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Join the discussion

by kajcha » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:50 am
I would substitute values for a and b... I think that makes the task easy
Join the discussion

by mayonnai5e » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
It's not possible to solve this answer with the typo in (2) since it could be ab >0 or ab < 0 or ab = 0, each of which has implications on the problem.

But to answer your question, this is how I would approach this problem. Since the absolute value function is simple (e.g. |a| vs |3a+b|), I would categorize the variables into sets of possible values:

a --> {+, -, 0}
b --> {+, -, 0}
|a| --> {+, 0}
|b| --> {+, 0}
*remember your 0 properties and the stem did not state a and b are non-zero

a * |b| < a – b?
{+, -, 0} * {+, 0} < {+, -, 0} - {+, -, 0}

(1) a < 0
so a is not 0 and is negative, then the equation above looks like this:

a * |b| < a – b?
{-} * {+, 0} < {-} - {+, -, 0}

so the left hand side must be negative or 0

a * |b| < a – b?
{-} < {-} - {+, -} ?
0 < {-} - {0} ?

so now you can plug in different numbers knowing that you can try to find values that makes that last version of the equation sometimes true and sometimes false so that you can eliminate (1) as an answer choice, but you must remember that |a| > |b| as given by the stem.

let a = -2 then b = { -1, 0,1 } since |-2| = 2 and 2 > |b|:

a * |b| < a – b?
{-} < {-} - {-} ? becomes (-2)(1) < -2 - (-1) True
{-} < {-} - {+} ? becomes (-2)(1) < -2 - 1 False
0 < {-} - {0} ? becomes (-2)(0) < -2 - 0 False

So (1) is not sufficient.

You don't necessarily need to write out the formula with the different values, but I did it here to illustrate my point. You can just use the information given to constraint the values, then plug in; I wouldn't actually write out the formula so many times on a CAT because it's too time consuming. My suggestion is to take a methodical approach like the one above while practicing to get used to it.
Join the discussion

by mayonnai5e » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:59 am
Here's the faster way:

* a and b are integers
*|a| > |b|

a --> {+, -, 0}
b --> {+, -, 0}

(1) a < 0

constrain a:
a --> {-}

let a = -2

constrain b:
b = { -1, 0,1 } since |-2| = 2 and 2 > |b|

select values:
(-2)(1) < -2 - (-1) True
(-2)(1) < -2 - 1 False
(-2)(0) < -2 - 0 False
Join the discussion

[quote="Auzbee"]
(2) ab 0
[/quote]

Folks sorry for not being clear on the second condition.
The second condition is:
(2) ab >= 0
Join the discussion

Folks sorry for not being clear on the second condition.
The second condition is:
(2) ab >= 0

---------

Now that we know Condition #2, here's my answer and let me know if this is what you all got:

for "ab >= 0", both a & b must have the same equality where either both a & b are Postive (+), or both a & b are Negative (-).

Using similar logic provide above (posts - which btw, they are awesome and neat trick to look at Absolute problems):

Postive: {0,+} * {0,+} < {0,+} - {0,+}; so for example:
if a=1 and b=2 --> 1*2 < 1 - 2 --> 2 < -2 --> FALSE
if a=2 and b=1 --> 2*1 < 2 - 1 --> 2 < 1 --> FALSE
if a=2 and b=0 --> 2*0 < 2 - 0 --> 2 < 0 --> FALSE

Negative: {0,-} * {0,+} < {0,-} - {0,-}; so for example:
if a=-2 and b=-1 --> -2*1 < -2 - (-1) --> -2 < -1 --> TRUE
if a=-1 and b=-2 --> -1*2 < -1 - (-2) --> -2 < 1 --> TRUE
if a=-2 and b=0 --> -2*0 < -2 - (0) --> 0 < -2 --> FALSE

So (2) is not sufficient due to inconsistence. And with So (1) being insufficient as well, that means the final result for this problem is E

p.s. I'd love to know if there's a short-cut because I feel like 6 examples for one DS problem is quite a bit, no?
Join the discussion

rtheman wrote: Postive: {0,+} * {0,+} < {0,+} - {0,+}; so for example:
if a=1 and b=2 --> 1*2 < 1 - 2 --> 2 < -2 --> FALSE
if a=2 and b=1 --> 2*1 < 2 - 1 --> 2 < 1 --> FALSE
if a=2 and b=0 --> 2*0 < 2 - 0 --> 2 < 0 --> FALSE

Negative: {0,-} * {0,+} < {0,-} - {0,-}; so for example:
if a=-2 and b=-1 --> -2*1 < -2 - (-1) --> -2 < -1 --> TRUE
if a=-1 and b=-2 --> -1*2 < -1 - (-2) --> -2 < 1 --> TRUE
if a=-2 and b=0 --> -2*0 < -2 - (0) --> 0 < -2 --> FALSE
Just wanted to point out three things:
1) if a=1 and b=2 --> 1*2 < 1 - 2 --> 2 < -2 --> FALSE
if a=-1 and b=-2 --> -1*2 < -1 - (-2) --> -2 < 1 --> TRUE
==> these values do not work and should not be used because they violate the given condition: |a| > |b|

2) I would simply test one set of "picked numbers" for each set of possible values (e.g. do 1 set of numbers for both a, b positive and 1 set of numbers for both a,b negative) and see what the results are before doing more numbers. This saves time since had you just done one set of picked numbers for each, you would have seen pretty quickly that one is true while the other is false.

3) You forgot to check both (1) and (2) combined.
Join the discussion