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.

Abominable ABs

Expert replies
by parul9 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:36 am
If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab >= 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
Last edited by parul9 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

by n@resh » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:36 am
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
Join the discussion

by parul9 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:10 am
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Join the discussion

by nandy1984 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:44 am
parul9 wrote:
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Naresh has explained the statement 1...Coming to Statement 2 following the same procedure

Statement 2 : ab>= 0
There are several conditions like
i) a>0,b>0,ab>0
ii) a<0,b<0,ab>0
iii) a>0,b=0,ab=0
iv) a<0,b=0,ab=0
v) a=0,b<0,ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> a-b>0 ---> b>0 correct
v)a=0, b>0, ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> -b>0 which is wrong
No need to solve all the combinations above just the last two combinations have two different results so we can say its INSUFFICIENT.

Combining Statement 1) and 2) we get combinations
(ii)a<0,b<0,ab>0 ----> a*|b|<0 ---> a-b either positive or negative depending on values of "a" and "b" if a=-2,b=-3 then a-b> a*|b| correct...1>-6 ; if a=-3,b=-2 then a-b =-1, a*|b| = -3*2=-6 -1>-6 correct.
(iv)a<0,b=0,ab=0 ----> a=-3 ---> -3>0 wrong...
so from the two combinations we get different answers so its INSUFFICIENT...Ans:E

If anyone can explain this in a more simplistic way you are welcome. I tried my best :)...if i am wrong CORRECT ME...Thanks
Join the discussion

by n@resh » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:23 am
nandy1984 wrote:
parul9 wrote:
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Naresh has explained the statement 1...Coming to Statement 2 following the same procedure

Statement 2 : ab>= 0
There are several conditions like
i) a>0,b>0,ab>0
ii) a<0,b<0,ab>0
iii) a>0,b=0,ab=0
iv) a<0,b=0,ab=0
v) a=0,b<0,ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> a-b>0 ---> b>0 correct
v)a=0, b>0, ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> -b>0 which is wrong
No need to solve all the combinations above just the last two combinations have two different results so we can say its INSUFFICIENT.

Combining Statement 1) and 2) we get combinations
(ii)a<0,b<0,ab>0 ----> a*|b|<0 ---> a-b either positive or negative depending on values of "a" and "b" if a=-2,b=-3 then a-b> a*|b| correct...1>-6 ; if a=-3,b=-2 then a-b =-1, a*|b| = -3*2=-6 -1>-6 correct.
(iv)a<0,b=0,ab=0 ----> a=-3 ---> -3>0 wrong...
so from the two combinations we get different answers so its INSUFFICIENT...Ans:E

If anyone can explain this in a more simplistic way you are welcome. I tried my best :)...if i am wrong CORRECT ME...Thanks
Answer will be still: E! nevertheless, a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!
Join the discussion

by nandy1984 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:21 am
n@resh wrote:
nandy1984 wrote:
parul9 wrote:
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Naresh has explained the statement 1...Coming to Statement 2 following the same procedure

Statement 2 : ab>= 0
There are several conditions like
i) a>0,b>0,ab>0
ii) a<0,b<0,ab>0
iii) a>0,b=0,ab=0
iv) a<0,b=0,ab=0
v) a=0,b<0,ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> a-b>0 ---> b>0 correct
v)a=0, b>0, ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> -b>0 which is wrong
No need to solve all the combinations above just the last two combinations have two different results so we can say its INSUFFICIENT.

Combining Statement 1) and 2) we get combinations
(ii)a<0,b<0,ab>0 ----> a*|b|<0 ---> a-b either positive or negative depending on values of "a" and "b" if a=-2,b=-3 then a-b> a*|b| correct...1>-6 ; if a=-3,b=-2 then a-b =-1, a*|b| = -3*2=-6 -1>-6 correct.
(iv)a<0,b=0,ab=0 ----> a=-3 ---> -3>0 wrong...
so from the two combinations we get different answers so its INSUFFICIENT...Ans:E

If anyone can explain this in a more simplistic way you are welcome. I tried my best :)...if i am wrong CORRECT ME...Thanks
Answer will be still: E! nevertheless, a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!
HELLO nARESH THIS IS A WONDERFUL POINT I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT....a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!...tHANK YOU....
Join the discussion

by nandy1984 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:22 am
n@resh wrote:
nandy1984 wrote:
parul9 wrote:
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Naresh has explained the statement 1...Coming to Statement 2 following the same procedure

Statement 2 : ab>= 0
There are several conditions like
i) a>0,b>0,ab>0
ii) a<0,b<0,ab>0
iii) a>0,b=0,ab=0
iv) a<0,b=0,ab=0
v) a=0,b<0,ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> a-b>0 ---> b>0 correct
v)a=0, b>0, ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> -b>0 which is wrong
No need to solve all the combinations above just the last two combinations have two different results so we can say its INSUFFICIENT.

Combining Statement 1) and 2) we get combinations
(ii)a<0,b<0,ab>0 ----> a*|b|<0 ---> a-b either positive or negative depending on values of "a" and "b" if a=-2,b=-3 then a-b> a*|b| correct...1>-6 ; if a=-3,b=-2 then a-b =-1, a*|b| = -3*2=-6 -1>-6 correct.
(iv)a<0,b=0,ab=0 ----> a=-3 ---> -3>0 wrong...
so from the two combinations we get different answers so its INSUFFICIENT...Ans:E

If anyone can explain this in a more simplistic way you are welcome. I tried my best :)...if i am wrong CORRECT ME...Thanks
Answer will be still: E! nevertheless, a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!
HELLO nARESH THIS IS A WONDERFUL POINT I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT....a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!...tHANK YOU....
Join the discussion

by nandy1984 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:23 am
n@resh wrote:
nandy1984 wrote:
parul9 wrote:
n@resh wrote:
parul9 wrote:If a and b are integers, and |a| > |b|, is a · |b| < a - b?

(1) a < 0

(2) ab 0

OA : [spoiler]E Can someone please explain??[/spoiler]
From stat1: a < 0,
plug-in numbers: a = -1, b = 0 ; 0 < -1 ( FALSE)
a = -2, b = 1 ; -2 < -3 (FALSE)
a = -2, b = -1 ; -2 < -1 ( TRUE)
clearly, not sufficient.

From stat2: ab 0; it seems expression missing it's relation sign!
well, if we consider <, > then obviously it's not sufficient!
but if we have ab = 0; to satisfy |a| > |b|, then a must be non-zero (but it can be < 0 or >0), so b should be 0!
e.g: a = -2, b = 0; 0 < -2 ( FALSE)
a = 2, b = 0; 0 < 2 ( TRUE)

Hence, it's not sufficient!

NOTE: if i consider, ab = 0 and a < 0 ; then the statement can be solved by using these both statements!
However, as 2nd statement isn't clear then i'll go for not sufficient. E!
The second statement is ab >= 0. I will edit the main post too!
Naresh has explained the statement 1...Coming to Statement 2 following the same procedure

Statement 2 : ab>= 0
There are several conditions like
i) a>0,b>0,ab>0
ii) a<0,b<0,ab>0
iii) a>0,b=0,ab=0
iv) a<0,b=0,ab=0
v) a=0,b<0,ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> a-b>0 ---> b>0 correct
v)a=0, b>0, ab=0 ---> a*|b|=0 ---> -b>0 which is wrong
No need to solve all the combinations above just the last two combinations have two different results so we can say its INSUFFICIENT.

Combining Statement 1) and 2) we get combinations
(ii)a<0,b<0,ab>0 ----> a*|b|<0 ---> a-b either positive or negative depending on values of "a" and "b" if a=-2,b=-3 then a-b> a*|b| correct...1>-6 ; if a=-3,b=-2 then a-b =-1, a*|b| = -3*2=-6 -1>-6 correct.
(iv)a<0,b=0,ab=0 ----> a=-3 ---> -3>0 wrong...
so from the two combinations we get different answers so its INSUFFICIENT...Ans:E

If anyone can explain this in a more simplistic way you are welcome. I tried my best :)...if i am wrong CORRECT ME...Thanks
Answer will be still: E! nevertheless, a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!
HELLO nARESH THIS IS A WONDERFUL POINT I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT....a can't be zero as per |a| > |b|!...tHANK YOU....
Join the discussion