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
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

Absolute Inequalities

Expert replies
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by Rahul@gurome » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:10 pm
Given: x² > y²
Implies |x| > |y|

Statement 1: x > |y|
Certainly x is positive. Now y can be positive or negative. If y is negative, x is obviously greater than y (as x is positive). If y is positive, then its absolute value that is y itself is less than x. Thus x > y always.

Sufficient.

Statement 2: |x| > y
If x is positive, this statement directly implies x > y.
If x is negative, then two possible cases
  • 1. y positive => y > x (Example: x = -5, y = 2)
    2. y negative => x < y as |x| > |y|
Not sufficient.

The correct answer is A.
Rahul Lakhani
Quant Expert
Gurome, Inc.
https://www.GuroMe.com
On MBA sabbatical (at ISB) for 2011-12 - will stay active as time permits
1-800-566-4043 (USA)
+91-99201 32411 (India)
Join the discussion

by gmatusa2010 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:22 pm
Rahul,

Here's my approach, is it correct?


X^2-Y^2>0 meaning X+Y and X-Y have to have the same sign. I'm just going to look at Statement 2 here:

2) |X|>Y means X>Y or X-Y>0 OR -X>Y meaning X+Y<0 (Is this correct re-statement?)

Since the signs have to be the same when X-Y then X+Y is also positive, that step is meaningless because it already answer our question of is X-Y>0.

The second condition of X+Y<0 means X-Y also has to be less than Zero. Now we have two scenarios that will satisfy X^2-Y^2 but gives different result of X-Y so insufficient.
Join the discussion

by Night reader » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:23 pm
gmatusa2010 wrote:If X^2>Y^2 is X>y?

1) X>|Y|
2) |X|>Y


Let's see some different approaches....
simplifying problem => |x|>|y| => x>y and x<y

st(1) x>y and x>-y => x>y only if -x<-y, however st(1) defines only -x<y, Not sufficient
st(2) x>y and -x>y => x>y only if -x<-y, however st(2) defines only x<-y, Not sufficient

Combining st(1&2) => x>-y and -x>y we get |x|<|y| from where only possible x<y Satisfies - Answer No x<y

IOM C
Join the discussion

by Rahul@gurome » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:38 pm
@gmatusa2010: Yes you are correct! :)
Night reader wrote:simplifying problem => |x|>|y| => x>y and x<y

st(1) x>y and x>-y => x>y only if -x<-y, however st(1) defines only -x<y, Not sufficient
st(2) x>y and -x>y => x>y only if -x<-y, however st(2) defines only x<-y, Not sufficient
These are not AND cases, they are OR cases.

x > |y| implies either x > y (if y is positive) or x > -y (if y is negative).
As of your consideration both of them are simultaneously true which is not possible. Same for statement 2.
Rahul Lakhani
Quant Expert
Gurome, Inc.
https://www.GuroMe.com
On MBA sabbatical (at ISB) for 2011-12 - will stay active as time permits
1-800-566-4043 (USA)
+91-99201 32411 (India)
Join the discussion

by Night reader » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:42 pm
yes Rahul, I see my mistakes. I approached mods mechanically, better was plug-in to see that A is correct.
Join the discussion

by gmatusa2010 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:42 pm
Rahul,

I noticed that when u did your cases there were 3. X is positive, X is negative and Y negative, and X is negative and Y is positive. I got the statement correctly but am I missing things with just two cases?
Join the discussion

by SUHAILK » Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:53 pm
statement 1:

x > |y| ==> x > 0 ---(1)

now lets see whether x > y :

case 1) y > 0

==> x >|y| = x > y (if y > 0 |y| = y) -- yes x > y

case 2) y< 0

x > 0 from inequality (1) & y < 0 ...==> yes x > y

Hence Statement 1 is Sufficient


Statement 2:

|x| > y lets assume |x| = K (positive real no) , so now we can rewrite statement 2 as

y < K (a positive real no)

above inequality can be represented on number line as given below:

Image

means y can be positive or negative

with this knowledge lets check whether x > y

case 1 : x > 0

then
|x| > y = x > y ==> yes x > y

case 2 : x < 0

to understand x > y under this condition lets take some e.g

example 1: x = -4 => |x| = 4 => y < 4 => y = (....-5,-4, -3 , -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3)

=> for some cases x > y and for some cases x < y

hence Statement 2 is Insufficient

Answer A


Please let me know if my answer is correct or not.
[/img]
Join the discussion

by anshumishra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:02 pm
X^2 > y^2 => |x| > |y|

Is x > y ?

Let us represent the relationship (|x| > |y|) on a number line :


--------------X'-----Y'-------0--------Y----X------------------


Statement 1:

x > |y| , Since |y| is always non-negative, that means x = X' in the diagram above
Hence, clearly X > Y ---- Sufficient


Statement 2 :

|x| > y
which is true for both X and X'
When x = X, then X > Y,
but when x = X' then x < Y

hence - Insufficient

Answer is A.
Last edited by anshumishra on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by gmatusa2010 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:12 pm
Interesting approach... how did you get x^2=y^2?
anshumishra wrote:X^2 = y^2 => |x| > |y|

Is x > y ?

Let us represent the relationship (|x| > |y|) on a number line :


--------------X'-----Y'-------0--------Y----X------------------


Statement 1:

x > |y| , Since |y| is always non-negative, that means x = X' in the diagram above
Hence, clearly X > Y ---- Sufficient


Statement 2 :

|x| > y
which is true for both X and X'
When x = X, then X > Y,
but when x = X' then x < Y

hence - Insufficient

Answer is A.
Join the discussion

by anshumishra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:15 pm
gmatusa2010 wrote:Interesting approach... how did you get x^2=y^2?
anshumishra wrote:X^2 = y^2 => |x| > |y|

Is x > y ?

Let us represent the relationship (|x| > |y|) on a number line :


--------------X'-----Y'-------0--------Y----X------------------


Statement 1:

x > |y| , Since |y| is always non-negative, that means x = X' in the diagram above
Hence, clearly X > Y ---- Sufficient


Statement 2 :

|x| > y
which is true for both X and X'
When x = X, then X > Y,
but when x = X' then x < Y

hence - Insufficient

Answer is A.
Hey gmatusa2010, that was a typo, I have fixed it.

It is in the given question :

If X^2>Y^2 is X>y?

1) X>|Y|
2) |X|>Y
Last edited by anshumishra on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by Rahul@gurome » Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:21 pm
gmatusa2010 wrote:Rahul,

I noticed that when u did your cases there were 3. X is positive, X is negative and Y negative, and X is negative and Y is positive. I got the statement correctly but am I missing things with just two cases?
No, you're not missing anything.
Note that my first case "If x is positive, this statement directly implies x > y" is same as your first case "X-Y>0". 2nd and 3rd cases of my analysis is also same as the 2nd one of yours (This equivalence is not so direct as the 1st one).
Rahul Lakhani
Quant Expert
Gurome, Inc.
https://www.GuroMe.com
On MBA sabbatical (at ISB) for 2011-12 - will stay active as time permits
1-800-566-4043 (USA)
+91-99201 32411 (India)
Join the discussion