Engr2012 wrote:
jmikery wrote:
So we're given the dimensions of circle C and then we're told circle F has the radius R.
1 tells us that the distance between the two circles is 1+R. If the two circles were separated by more than their radii combined, it means that they don't intersect. However, 1+R is less than the radius of circle C and the radius of Circle F combined (2+R). Therefore, circle C and circle F intersect at 2 points (if 1+R=radius of circle C and circle F, it would be tangent).
SUFFICIENT
2 tells us the value of R but gives us no indication about the location of circle F in relation to circle C.
INSUFFICIENT
Therefore the answer is A
IMO, you can not say statement 1 is sufficient without knowing the exact value of R. Case in point R=3 or R=0.3
You will get 2 different answers for the above 2 values of R.
Here's my POV on it:
No matter what R is, the circles won't touch if the distance between the centers of the two circles is greater than combined radii, R+2, in this case (R being the radius of circle F).
However, statement 1 says that the distance between the centers is R+1, which is shorter than the combined distance of the radii. Therefore, no matter what R is, R+1 is always less than the distance between the two radii and therefore: the circles have to intersect at some point.
Given the two cases: If R=3, the circles are 3+1=4 units apart. The radii are a combined 5 units, therefore the circles intersect.
If R=0.3, the circles are 0.3+1=1.3 units apart. The radii are a combined 2.3 units, therefore the distance is still smaller than the combined length of the radii and thus the circles intersect.
Whatever the value of R, the combined length of the radii will be (R+2)-(R+1)=1 unit larger than the distance between the circles.