It is currently Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:11 pm

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 2 [ 12 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: GMAT Algebra (Data Sufficiency)Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:12 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 424
Is (x – 4)(x – 3)(x + 2)(x + 1) > 0 ?
(1) 3 > x
(2) x > -1

A. Statement (1) BY ITSELF is sufficient to answer the question, but statement (2) by itself is not.
B. Statement (2) BY ITSELF is sufficient to answer the question, but statement (1) by itself is not.
C. Statements (1) and (2) TAKEN TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question, even though NEITHER statement BY ITSELF is sufficient.
D. Either statement BY ITSELF is sufficient to answer the question.
E. Statements (1) and (2) TAKEN TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question, meaning that further information would be needed to answer the question.

(C) The expression (x – 4)(x – 3)(x + 2)(x + 1) is composed of four factors. It will equal 0 if at least one of the factors is 0. It will be positive if all the four factors are positive, if all the four factors are negative, or if two of them are negative and the other two are positive. Otherwise the epxression will be negative.

Statement (1), 3 > x, implies that the factors (x – 4) and (x – 3) are negative. The signs of the other two factors, (x + 2) and (x + 1), are not defined. E.g. they both can be positive if x = 1. Or one of them can equal 0 if x = -1 or x = -2. Or (x + 2) can be positive and (x + 1) can be negative if x = -1.5, etc. Therefore the original expression can be positive, negative or 0 and we can NOT give a definite answer to the original question. Statement (1) by itself is NOT sufficient.

Statement (2), x > -1, implies that the factors (x + 2) and (x + 1) are positive. The signs of the other two factors, (x – 4) and (x – 3) , are not defined. E.g. they both can be positive if x = 5. Or one of them can equal 0 if x = 3 or x = 4. Or (x – 3) can be positive and (x – 4) can be negative if x = 3.5, etc. Therefore the original expression can be positive, negative or 0 and we can NOT give a definite answer to the original question. Statement (2) by itself is NOT sufficient.

If we use the both statements together, statement (1) implies that factors (x – 4) and (x – 3) are negative. Statement (2) implies that factors (x + 2) and (x + 1) are positive. Therefore the original expression must be positive (2 negative factors × 2 positive factors). The both statements taken together are sufficient to answer the question. The correct answer is C.

Alternative method:
You may solve the original inequality first and then compare the solution with the inequality (1), inequality (2) and a system of inequalities (1) and (2) using the number line.
----------

Between -1 & 3 the expression acquires negative as well as positive values.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:23 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
Quote:
Between -1 & 3 the expression acquires negative as well as positive values.
It's x that is between -1 and 3, not the range of values of the whole expression.

If x > -1 then (x + 2) and (x + 1) are positive.
If x < 3 then (x – 4) and (x – 3) are negative.
Therefore the product of all factors, (x – 4)(x – 3)(x + 2)(x + 1), is positive for all values of x between -1 and 3.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:52 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 424
1st won't work - check for x = 3.5 and 7 - they will give opposite signs.
2nd won't work - check for x = 1 and 5 - they will give opposite sings.

Combining the both won't work - check for x = 1 and -1.5 - they again give opposite signs.

Hence the answer is E.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:24 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
Quote:
1st won't work - check for x = 3.5 and 7 - they will give opposite signs.
The both values do not fit in statement (1) 3 > x.
Quote:
2nd won't work - check for x = 1 and 5 - they will give opposite sings.
x = 1 and 5 both give the same sign.
(1 – 4)(1 – 3)(1 + 2)(1 + 1) = (-3)(-2)(3)(2) = 36 > 0
(5 – 4)(5 – 3)(5 + 2)(5 + 1) = 1 × 2 × 7 × 5 = 70 > 0
Quote:
Combining the both won't work - check for x = 1 and -1.5 - they again give opposite signs.
The value -1.5 does not fit in statement (2) x > -1.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:15 am

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:10 am
Posts: 1
1st won't work - check for x=1 and -1.5 - they will give opp.signs and satisfies x<3
2nd won't work - check for x=3.5 and 5 - they will give opp.sings and satisfies x > -1

combining both won't work- check for x=1 and -1.5 - they again give opp.signs and satisfies -1<x<3

hence ans is E

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:32 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
Quote:
1st won't work - check for x = 1 and -1.5 - they will give opp.signs and satisfies x < 3
That is correct.

Quote:
2nd won't work - check for x = 3.5 and 5 - they will give opp.sings and satisfies x > -1
That is correct as well.

Quote:
combining both won't work- check for x = 1 and -1.5 - they again give opp.signs and satisfies -1 < x < 3
That is NOT correct, because -1.5 does NOT satisfy -1 < x < 3.
-1.5 < -1 < x < 3

Here is the proof of why -1 < x < 3 works:
If x > -1 then (x + 2) and (x + 1) are positive.
If x < 3 then (x – 4) and (x – 3) are negative.
Therefore the product of all factors, (x – 4)(x – 3)(x + 2)(x + 1), is negative × negative × positive × positive = positive for all values of x between -1 and 3.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:36 am

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 424
For x = -3/2 the answer is -ive while for x = 0 it will be +ive. Thus even if we use both A and B, the value for the expression is not certain.
For range -1 to -2 the expression is -ive
For range -2 to -3 the expression is +ive

Thus answer should be E

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 6:46 am

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
(1) 3 > x
(2) x > -1

The both statements combined result in -1 < x < 3.

Quote:
For x = -3/2 the answer is -ive …
x = -3/2 is less than -1 and thus is NOT within the range.

Quote:
For range -1 to -2 the expression is -ive
For range -2 to -3 the expression is +ive
The both ranges are NOT within the range -1 < x < 3 .

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:07 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 424
Can you explain the alternative method in a little more detail.

Top

 Post subject: Re: t.1, qt. 13: inequalities. data sufficiencyPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:31 pm

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
questioner wrote:
Can you explain the alternative method in a little more detail.
We solve the inequality (x – 4)(x – 3)(x + 2)(x + 1) > 0 first.

Mark the points 4, 3, -2 and -1 on the number line:

The number line is divided into 5 segments. In each segment each factor does not change its sign (positive or negative). So the whole expression in the left side is of the same sign as any value within that segment. Buy picking numbers -3, -1.5, 0, 3.5, and 5 you can see that the solution of the inequality is:

x < -2 , -1 < x < 3 , x > 4

Now, when you solved the original inequality, compare the solution to each statement.
(1) 3 > x
As you can see, within this range there are values from the solution ( x < -2 , 1 < x < 3 ) as also values that are not in the solution ( -2 ≤ x ≤ -1 ). So we do not have a definite answer.

(2) x > -1
As you can see, within this range there are values from the solution ( -1 < x < 3 , x > 4 ) as also values that are not in the solution ( 3 ≤ x ≤ 4 ). So we do not have a definite answer.

(1) 3 > x AND (2) x > -1 yield 1 < x < 3 .
All the values within this range are from the solution. So we have the definite answer "If (1) and (2) are both true (given) then the original inequality holds true."

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 2 [ 12 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ GMAT    GMAT: Quantitative Section (Math)    GMAT: Verbal Section    GMAT: Integrated Reasoning    GMAT: General Questions GRE    GRE: Quantitative Reasoning (Math)    GRE: Verbal Reasoning    GRE: General Questions General questions    Other questions
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group