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

Redeem

Faster way to solve this.

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:13 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:4 members

Faster way to solve this.

by vittalgmat » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:31 pm
Hi,
I am looking for a faster way to solve problems of this type.
Plugging in numbers takes longer time for me.. coz I could not come up with "smart" numbers and I lost time thinking about what numbers to choose. I chose a fraction such as 1/3 and solved III but by then my 2 mins was up.

Pls suggest a faster way to solve such problems.


If x is positive, which of the following could be the correct ordering of 1/x,2x, and x^2

I. x^2<2x<1/x
II. x^2<1/x<2x
III. 2x< x^2<1/x

a. None
b. I only
c. III only
d. I and II
e I, II and III

TIA
Top
Source: — Problem Solving |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:54 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by valleeny » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:37 pm
Is the ans D? I don't know of a short method either. I had to insert numbers and see the pattern. Not good. Maybe you can share your method.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:37 am
vittalgmat wrote: If x is positive, which of the following could be the correct ordering of 1/x,2x, and x^2

I. x^2<2x<1/x
II. x^2<1/x<2x
III. 2x< x^2<1/x
If you can quickly find a value of x that works in one of the inequalities, that may be the fastest way to establish that the inequality can be true. For II in particular it can be difficult to find a suitable number. If you can't find numbers that work, you can do this question algebraically; since x is positive, we can safely multiply or divide both sides of each inequality by x. Looking at I, we have three inequalities:

x^2 < 2x, or x < 2
2x < 1/x, or x^2 < 1/2, so x < sqrt(1/2)
x^2 < 1/x, or x^3 < 1, so x < 1

and if all three of these are true, I will be true - so I will be true if 0< x < sqrt(1/2)

For II, we have

x^2 < 1/x, so x^3 < 1, or x < 1
1/x < 2x, so 1 < 2x^2 or x > sqrt(1/2)
x^2 < 2x, so x < 2

and if all three of these are true, II will be true - so II will be true if sqrt(1/2) < x < 1

For III we have

2x < x^2, so 2 < x
x^2 < 1/x, so x^3 < 1, or x < 1

and since x cannot be larger than 2 and less than 1 at the same time, III cannot possibly be true.
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
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:51 pm
nice, ian.

re: these two approaches:
Ian Stewart wrote:x^2 < 2x, or x < 2
2x < 1/x, or x^2 < 1/2, so x < sqrt(1/2)
x^2 < 1/x, or x^3 < 1, so x < 1
and
x^2 < 1/x, so x^3 < 1, or x < 1
1/x < 2x, so 1 < 2x^2 or x > sqrt(1/2)
x^2 < 2x, so x < 2
if you have a "sandwich inequality" of the type A < B < C, you don't have to check all three of these inequalities.
it's sufficient to check just "A < B" and "B < C".
any number that satisfies both of these will automatically satisfy A < C, since B bigger than A and C bigger than B implies that C is bigger than A.

so these approaches would be just as effective if you ignored the 3rd inequality of each one.

aside from that, though -- not much else you could improve (i.e., not really a shorter method) unless you are insanely good at picking numbers.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1