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.

Tough DS

Expert replies
by gmatmachoman » Sun May 09, 2010 11:59 am
If square roots of numbers are considered positive and sqrt( a) +sqrt( b) =sqrt (c )+ sqrt( d )+sqrt( e) , then is a < c?

(1) c = d


(2) sqrt (b )+ sqrt (d )< sqrt ( e)


This is areal tooughie!!
Last edited by gmatmachoman on Sun May 09, 2010 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun May 09, 2010 12:58 pm
gmatmachoman wrote:If square roots of numbers are considered positive and sqrt( a) +sqrt( b) =sqrt (c )+ sqrt( d )+sqrt( e) , then is a < c?

(1) c = d


(2) sqrt (b )+ sqrt (d ) sqrt (< e)


This is areal tooughie!!
Is that the full wording of the question? Nowhere does it say that a, b, c, d and e are positive; if there's additional language, please share! Statement (2) definitely has the inequality in the wrong spot.

Also, what's the source?

(1) no info about the left side of the equation, so clearly insufficient.

(2) without the inequality in the right spot, and without knowing if the variables could be 0, impossible to evaluate.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

by kuntalkkc » Sun May 09, 2010 2:21 pm
Nothing tough....no need to know whether a,b,c,d,e positive or not.cant be negetive thats for sure coz imaginary is not to be considered here to bring argund plane.

but a,b,c,d,e can be 0 or not thts not given...Fine.

take the statement 1: c=d..cant conclude that much because those quantities can be 0 also.

Take statement 2 only:

sqrt(b)+sqrt(d)<sqrt(e)[it can be seen it's a printing mistake in the post,so the actual inequality should be
like this]
=> sqrt(b)+sqrt(d)+m=sqrt(e) where m is a positive quantity>0 thats make the difference.

now take the given statement:

sqrt(a)+sqrt(b)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(e)
=>sqrt(a)+sqrt(b)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(b)+sqrt(d)+m...rite?

sqrt(b) gets cancelled from both sides.

=>sqrt(a)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(d)+m

now great thing is i know m is positive....so i dont bother about d where it +ve or 0.

gives,sqrt(a)>sqrt(c) as m is +ve

which gives a>c

which gives the ans that by statement 2 only we can ans this....any doubt?please post.
Join the discussion

by ansumania » Tue May 11, 2010 9:10 am
hi,

you mentioned :

sqrt(a)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(d)+m

if we m is + ve , then

sqrt(a)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(d)

=> sqrt(a)>=sqrt(c) or sqrt(a)<=sqrt(c)

as we know sqrt(d)>0 , but we don't know what the value is.

pl. suggest
Join the discussion

by analyst218 » Tue May 11, 2010 10:05 am
gmatmachoman wrote:If square roots of numbers are considered positive and sqrt( a) +sqrt( b) =sqrt (c )+ sqrt( d )+sqrt( e) , then is a < c?

(1) c = d


(2) sqrt (b )+ sqrt (d )< sqrt ( e)


This is areal tooughie!!
I agreet with stuart. sqr roots is positive is not enough info.
however, if had the question been 'is sqr a< sqr c?'
then
well statement 1 is clearly insuff.
in 2, you need sqr A bigger than sqr C since sqr d+sqr e will be greater than sqr b
Join the discussion

by kuntalkkc » Tue May 11, 2010 7:47 pm
It is clearly mentioned in the question that "sqrt of numbers are positive",

now as it is true that,

sqrt(a)=sqrt(c)+sqrt(d)+sqrt(d)+m where m is a +ve quantity>0

now worst case scenario is sqrt(d)=0,please note it cant be negetive as per question says.

so,for this worst case also,sqrt(a)=sqrt(c)+0+0+m(something +ve)

which means,after adding something +ve to sqrt(c) we are getting sqrt(a)

so even if sqrt(c) is 0,still we have sqrt(a) is positive.

so it is for sure that sqrt(a) is always greater than sqrt(c)[it is simply greater than(>),not greater than equal to(>=)]

now again by question as sqrt of numbers are mentioned as positive so definitely a has to be greater than b(because a,c cannot be negetive but c has always a chance to be 0.that is why in this question +ve is not mentioned)

so by statement 2 only we can reach the conclusion for sure...

Hope this explanation clears your doubt.
Join the discussion