The line meets the y-axis above the origin. Using Statement 1, we know (2, 3) is on the line. Here it's best to draw different diagrams, placing the y-intercept above and below y=3, to see where the x-intercept will be in different cases. If the y-intercept is only very slightly greater than 2, ( say at y = 2.1), then the line will be rising as it moves to the right, and the x-intercept will then be negative (so will certainly be less than 3). If instead the y-intercept is slightly greater than 3, say at y=4, then the line will be falling as it moves to the right, and as long as the slope is not extremely steep, the x-intercept will be greater than 3. So Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Using Statement 2, if the y-intercept is positive, and the slope is positive, then the line is rising as it moves to the right, so the x-intercept will be negative, and certainly not greater than 3, so Statement 2 is sufficient, and the answer is B.
The question is strange, though, because the two statements together contradict the information in the question stem, which is something that can never happen in a real GMAT question. If (2, 3) is on a line, and that line has slope 1/2, then the y-intercept of that line is exactly 2. It cannot be greater than 2, which is what the stem says. So either the question is not well-designed, or there's possibly a negative sign missing somewhere (I think the question is more interesting if the slope in Statement 2 is -1/2, rather than +1/2). Where is the question from?
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
