Nice work, everyone - what I think is the biggest takeaway here is kind of the inverse of a pretty critical concept. When you see questions that involve inequalities and variables, you have to be very careful about multiplying/dividing by a variable if you don't know the sign of the variable (because then you won't know the direction of the inequality).
In this case, though, we know that x^2 will be greater than 0 (it can't be negative, and statement 1 proves that it isn't 0), so because we know that it will be positive, we can divide both sides by x^2 in statement 1 to get:
5>3x
5/3 > x
So, therefore, x is less than 5/3 and the answer to the overall question (which you can manipulate algebraically to solve for x: Is 10 < 6x, so is x >5/3?) is NO.
This question is a good example of what I guess I'll call "GMAT counterintelligence" - the authors of the GMAT know that examinees constantly make mistakes by dividing by variables in inequalities. If, say, 60% of test-takers are susceptible to that mistake, the authors of the test know that maybe 15% of those who are not bound to make that mistake have simply taught themselves "never divide by a variable in an inequality" - but that's not entirely true. If you know the sign of the variable you can divide by it. So the GMAT can take this application to weed out that next 15% so that they can correctly identify those at the top of the food chain who understand all sides of this concept. Beware of the counterintelligence - the authors know that people love the quick-fix...if they've been burned by a variable, they'll teach themselves quickly to not divide by a variable, but even that correction isn't 100%, so it's important to look at how the authors can use your own momentum against you.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank.
Learn More.