ds:inequality

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:50 pm

ds:inequality

by arjunshn » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:59 am
If p, q, r, and s are non-zero numbers, is pr/qs > r/q?
1) p > s
2) rq > 0

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:09 am
given (p/s)*(r/q) > (r/q)
=> is p/s > 1

is p and s integers?? are they both negitive or positive

1) P > S .. p = -1 and s = -2 and P/S = 1/2 [not okay]
p = 2 and s = 1 and P/S = 2 > 1 [Okay]
=> insufficient
2) rq>0 is not required here..

IMO E
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3835
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 1854 times
Followed by:523 members
GMAT Score:770

by Anurag@Gurome » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:39 am
arjunshn wrote:If p, q, r, and s are non-zero numbers, is pr/qs > r/q?
1) p > s
2) rq > 0
Question is: Is pr/qs > r/q?

(1) If p = 5, s = 4, r = q = 1, then pr/qs = 5/4 = 1.25 > 1. Here, pr/qs > r/q.
If p = -1, s = -2, r = -1, q = -1, then pr/qs = 1/2 = 0.5 < 1. Here pr/qs < r/q.
No unique answer.
So, (1) is NOT SUFFICIENT.

(2) rq > 0 implies either r and q are both positive or both negative. Again taking the examples in statement 1, we don't get a unique answer.
So, (2) is NOT SUFFICIENT.

Combining (1) and (2), also is NOT SUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is E.
Anurag Mairal, Ph.D., MBA
GMAT Expert, Admissions and Career Guidance
Gurome, Inc.
1-800-566-4043 (USA)

Join Our Facebook Groups
GMAT with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/272466352793633/
Admissions with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/461459690536574/
Career Advising with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/360435787349781/

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:02 am
arjunshn wrote:If p, q, r, and s are non-zero numbers, is pr/qs > r/q?
1) p > s
2) rq > 0
Another way to solve this question is to first rewrite the target question ("Is pr/qs > r/q?")
First, we can write pr/qs as (r/q)(p/s) to get ("Is (r/q)(p/s) > r/q?")
Now let's subtract r/q from both sides to get ("Is (r/q)(p/s) - (r/q) > 0?")
Finally, if we factor out the r/q, we get ("Is (r/q)[(p/s) - 1] > 0?")

Since we have now written the target question as the product of (r/q) and [(p/s) - 1], we can see that the only way to answer the target question is to determine whether (r/q) is positive or negative AND to determine whether [(p/s) - 1] is positive or negative

Now we can examine our statements

Statement 1
No information about (r/q), so statement 1 is not sufficient

Statement 2
No information about [(p/s) - 1], so statement 2 is not sufficient

Statements 1 and 2 combined
From statement 2: If rq > 0, then r and q are both positive or both negative, which means (r/q) must be positive
From statement 1: If p > s, then [(p/s) - 1] can be either positive or negative (Proof: if p=3 and s=1, then [(p/s) - 1] is positive and if p=1 and s=-2, then [(p/s) - 1] is negative)

Since [(p/s) - 1] can be either positive or negative, there is now way to determine whether (r/q)[(p/s) - 1] > 0

So the statements combined are not sufficient, which means the answer is E
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:12 am
Location: Dominican Republic
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:480

by MAAJ » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:23 pm
With statement 2 you can also multiple by Q/R because R/Q or Q/R is positive

PR/QS > R/Q ?
PR/QS * (Q/R) > R/Q * (Q/R) ?
PRQ/QSR > 1 ?
P/S > 1 ?

And with statement 1 we can't answer that because P/S is a ratio.
"There's a difference between interest and commitment. When you're interested in doing something, you do it only when circumstance permit. When you're committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results."