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

Redeem

confusing inequation

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

Re: confusing inequation

by gabriel » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:06 pm
magical cook wrote:Is r > -1?

(1) r > -5
(2) r <16

Can you possibly explain the differences between the question?
Well for starters the first one is a DS question and the second one is a PS question :P .. anyway i was for some reason not able to post my whole reply so am attaching it to this post .. go thru it and let me know if you have any doubts ...
Attachments
Inequality.doc
(26.5 KiB) Downloaded 106 times
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:27 pm
:?
Attachments
Thanks Gabriel.doc
(24 KiB) Downloaded 76 times
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:00 am
Dont worry about it , your earlier understanding of the concept is correct, the answer to the second question is E and not D, if the OA says D it is wrong ...
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:35 am
hmm..but I think the answer for the second question should be correct because it's in OG10..... :?
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:58 am
magical cook wrote:hmm..but I think the answer for the second question should be correct because it's in OG10..... :?
Oh well .. the answer is D :) ... When x is between -3 and 5 then obviously x is > -5 ... I am really sorry about this .. I totally misread the question .. I blame the extra sugar intake (you know it being diwali and all) ...

PS:- for my Non- Indian friends Diwali is the biggest festival in India ..
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:07 am
Thanks gabriel for confirmation....


So, can I assume that when X is closed (meaning like -3<x<5), as long as X is "covered" it's ok....

BUT when X is NOT closed (like X<-3) we can not just assume that X<-5 covers because X could be -4.....


extra suger intake....I though you are talking about CHAI tea... :wink:
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:33 am
magical cook wrote:Thanks gabriel for confirmation....


So, can I assume that when X is closed (meaning like -3<x<5), as long as X is "covered" it's ok....

BUT when X is NOT closed (like X<-3) we can not just assume that X<-5 covers because X could be -4.....


extra suger intake....I though you are talking about CHAI tea... :wink:
hmm .. seems like we know a bit of hindi .. so i guess we will be communicating in Hindi henceforth :D ..

Well about ur question ... Remember in the question x has been defined in the range -3<x<5 .. any value of x lying in this range is greater than 5 .. but if x is defined in the range -6<x<5>-5 .. So yes if the range given in the answer choice entirely covers the range given in the question then it should be true ...

this can also be true for a open ended range .. for example if the question says x>-3 even then x>-5 because every integer greater than -3 will also be greater than -5 .. this is because the range x>-5 covers the range x>-3 entirely ...Does that help...
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:50 pm
Thanks gabriel (and sorry for bothering again..)

but the first question's answer is E. So that means r>-5 covers r>-1 but not sufficient...? :? this is the part I got confused...
Join the discussion

by gabriel » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:14 am
magical cook wrote:Thanks gabriel (and sorry for bothering again..)

but the first question's answer is E. So that means r>-5 covers r>-1 but not sufficient...? :? this is the part I got confused...
No, over here the question says, if r>-5 is r>-1, so over here u have to check if r>-1 entirely covers r>-5 which it doesnt, bcoz r can take values between -5 and -1 in which case r is not >-1 ,

the answer would have been A if the question said r>-1 and asked u if r>-5 .. in such a case r>-5 does entirely cover r>-1 ... as u see there is a subtle difference between both and that subtle difference is what changes the answer in both these cases...

On a off note, u really dont have to be sorry about anything ..
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:19 am
Okay - thanks so much for patiently explaing this! :P
Join the discussion