BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

tought inequalities

Expert replies
by mariah » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:31 am
If x/y >2, is 3x+2y<18?

a. x-y is less than 2
b. y-x is less than 2


oa a

question to experts : i know that we can add inequalities when both have same ">" signs but can we substruct inequalitities?
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:03 am
mariah wrote:If x/y >2, is 3x+2y<18?

a. x-y is less than 2
b. y-x is less than 2


oa a

question to experts : i know that we can add inequalities when both have same ">" signs but can we substruct inequalitities?
Since x/y > 2, x and y have the same sign.
If x and y are both negative, then 3x + 2y < 18, and the answer is a definite YES.
Thus, our concern here is what happens to the value of 3x+2y when x and y are both positive.
If x and y are both positive, then x>2y -- information that we can use when we evaluate each statement.
To add inequalities, the <> must face the same direction in each inequality.

Statement 1: x-y<2.
Thus, y+2 > x.
Adding this inequality to x>2y, we get:
(y+2) + x > x + 2y
2 > y.
Since y<2, and x<y+2, x<4.
This means that the upper limit of 3x+2y = 3(4) + 2(2) = 16.
Thus, when x and y are both positive, 3x+2y < 18.
SUFFICIENT.

Statement 2: y-x<2.
Thus, x+2 > y.
Adding this inequality to x>2y, we get:
(x+2) + x > y+ 2y
3y-2x < 2.
If y=2 and x=3, then 3x+2y = 12.
If y=10 and x=15, then 3x+2y = 60.
Since in the first case 3x+2y<18 and in the second case 3x+2y>18, INSUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is A.

Many DS questions that involve inequalities are best solved using a combination of algebra and plugging in values.
Algebra often is the most efficient way to prove that a statement is SUFFICIENT.
Plugging in values often is the most efficient way to prove that a statement is INSUFFICIENT.

I would advise against looking for ways to subtract one inequality from another.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Join the discussion

by chieftang » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:45 am
We want x and y to be positive numbers in order to try to make the second equation be > 18.

1. If x - y < 2 and x/y > 2 then we know x < 3 because 3-1=2 and larger numbers separated by "almost 2" will fail the x/y > 2 check.

So we can test a number pair into the second equation (such as x = 2.9 and y = 1) which just barely satisfies x - y < 2 and x/y > 2, and see how close to 18 we get:

3*(2.9) + 2*(1) = 10.7

Larger number pairs can not satisfy both equations, and 10.7 much less than 18, so I'm comfortable with 1 being sufficient by itself.

2. If y - x < 2 and x/y > 2 then x and y can be very large numbers (x=100, y=20 works) or small numbers. So it's easy to see that conditions exist where the second equation is both greater than and less than 18, by inspection.

Therefore [spoiler]2 is insufficient by itself, and it contradicts 1 so we can't use 2[/spoiler].

Answer: A
Join the discussion

by shankar.ashwin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:54 am
Another approach, without adding or subtracting inequalities.

Once you reduce the question to both 'x' and 'y' being +ve.

We have, x>2y - - - - - (1)

Statement 1

x-y < 2

x < y + 2 - - - - - - (2)

Combining we have,

2y < x < y+2

2y < y+2

y < 2

Now if y < 2, we have x < 4 from (2) Sufficient

Statement 2

y - x < 2

x > y - 2 - - - - - - - (3)

From (1) and (3)

x > y - 2 (and) x > 2y

From here we can have infinite possibilities which satisfy these 2 equations. Insufficient.
Join the discussion