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.

Tougie

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Re: Tougie

by iamcste » Fri May 01, 2009 9:26 am
rahuljones1 wrote:If x is not equal to 0, is |x| less than 1?

(1)
x
--- < x
|x|



(2) |x| > x

IMO C

explantion if anwer is correct :D
Join the discussion

by schumi_gmat » Fri May 01, 2009 9:37 am
IMO E
Equation reduces to -1<x<1? x not equal to zero

1) x/ lxl < x

x= 3, expression is true 1<3
x=-3, -1<-3 .....false
x=-1/2. -1<-1/2.......true
x=1/2...1 < 1/2 .....false

It is true for -1<x<0 and x>1
Insuff

2) lxl>x
This is true for x<0 but not for 0<x<1.
Insuff.

Together,
x<0 or x>1

Whats OA?
Join the discussion

by scoobydooby » Fri May 01, 2009 9:50 am
i get C

1) x/ lxl < x
=>x<x*|x| (|x|>0, given x not =0)
=>x-x*|x|<0
=>x(1-|x|)<0
either x<0, 1-|x|>0=>|x|<1........a or
x>0, 1-|x|<0=>|x|>1.........b

gives both yes and no answers, not sufficient

2) |x| > x
=>|x|-x>0
if x>0, x-x>0=> 0>0 not possible
so x must be negative. given that x is not 0
|x| may be <1 or >1 cant say
not sufficient

combining, we get x<0 from 2).
so |x|<1 from a in statement 1)

hence, C
Join the discussion

by schumi_gmat » Fri May 01, 2009 9:55 am
What is wrong in my explantion?
Join the discussion

by scoobydooby » Fri May 01, 2009 10:08 am
schumi,
from 1) you get -1<x<0 or x>1
and from 2) x<0

when you combine, x>1 is ruled out. you get -1<x<0 which would make |x|<1 so C would be sufficient.
Join the discussion

by schumi_gmat » Fri May 01, 2009 10:12 am
Thanks Scooby,

Is my assumption, lxl<1 ===> -1<x<1 correct?

I got it this way.

for x>0, x<1
for x<0, -x<1 i.e. x>-1

Hence -1<x<1

If this is correct, then the conditions does hold true for 0<x<1
Join the discussion

Re: Tougie

by Ian Stewart » Fri May 01, 2009 11:35 am
rahuljones1 wrote:If x is not equal to 0, is |x| less than 1?

(1) x/ |x| < x

(2) |x| > x
Another way to look at the above:

Using only 1), we can multiply on both sides by |x|, since |x| must be positive:

x < |x|*x

If x is positive, dividing by x tells us that |x| > 1. If x is negative, dividing by x (and reversing the inequality, since we're dividing by a negative) tells us that |x| < 1. Insufficient.

Using only 2), if x is positive, then |x| = x, while if x is negative, |x| > x. So S2 simply tells us that x is negative, which is insufficient.

Using 1) + 2) together, we know x is negative, so as we saw when analyzing S1 alone, this tells us that |x| < 1 (indeed, it must be that -1 < x < 0). So C.
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
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Fri May 01, 2009 12:16 pm
If x is not equal to 0, is |x| less than 1?

(1)
x
--- < x
|x|


(2) |x| > x

=============================
Q is asking for whether : |x|<1 or -1<x<1

1). x<x|x|
if x<0, x<-x2 or x^2+x <0 or x(x+1)<0
as x<0 we know x+1 >0 or x>-1 so it says -1<x<0
here |x| <1
: for x>0 x<x^2 or x(x-1)<0 as x>0 x<1 so in range 0<x<1
so this case is ok

2. |x| > x
if x<0 -x>x or 0>2x or x<0 nothing new
if x>0 x>x or 0>0 not possible
so for sure we know x<0 as oter case is not possible here but less than 0 doesnt mean it cant be less than 1 it can well be -5 or -5000 so not sufficient

Combining 1 & 2 we know for x<0 and so we can take the range -1<x<0

so |x| <1 as it is between 0 and 1

i will go with CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Join the discussion