Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Re: number properties [#permalink]
05 Nov 2012, 13:49

yes. question and answers correct. it is from veritas . and it says correct answer is E. neither (1) or (2) not suff. But I think something wrong with this.

Re: number properties [#permalink]
05 Nov 2012, 21:59

2p-q>2p+q => 2p-2p>q+q => 2q<0 => q<0 which is stated in Statement 2. Now statment 1 says p<0

Take values of p=-1 and q=-2 keeping this in our original inqulality, we get 2(-1)-(-2)/2(-1)+(-2) > 1 => -2+2/-2-2 > 1 => 0 > 1 which is not possible

You can check by taking values p=-2 and q=-1 u will get 0.6>1 whihc is not possible so, both the statements are not sufficeint to answer the question So answer E...

Re: number properties [#permalink]
05 Nov 2012, 22:09

bhavinshah5685 wrote:

2p-q>2p+q => 2p-2p>q+q => 2q<0 => q<0 which is stated in Statement 2. Now statment 1 says p<0

Take values of p=-1 and q=-2 keeping this in our original inqulality, we get 2(-1)-(-2)/2(-1)+(-2) > 1 => -2+2/-2-2 > 1 => 0 > 1 which is not possible

You can check by taking values p=-2 and q=-1 u will get 0.6>1 whihc is not possible so, both the statements are not sufficeint to answer the question So answer E...

I dont know whether my approach is right or not..

Ok. yours almost same approach with me. but this is yes or no question. right? If we can aswer to this question as NO with (b), then b is the answer.

Re: number properties [#permalink]
05 Nov 2012, 23:53

eeakkan wrote:

Ok. thanks. I think I have missed that point.So only we could solve this equation as giving by numbers.

Picking numbers may not be the only way to solve it. But it is a very simple way to solve it. After picking numbers, we can see that we need to know wbout an additional parameter ie whether |2p| > |q| to decide on whether the given equation is greater than 1.

Kudos Please... If my post helped. _________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Re: number properties [#permalink]
06 Nov 2012, 00:06

eeakkan wrote:

Ok. thanks. I think I have missed that point.So only we could solve this equation as giving by numbers.

No, it could be solved easily algebrically as well.

question is: is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1 ?

or (2p-q)/(2p+q) -1 >0

=> (2p-q-2p-q) / (2p+q) >0

=> -2q/(2p+q) >0 ?

=> is 2q/(2p+q) <0

Statement 1: p <0 Doesnt tell us anything Statement 2: q >0 doesnt tell anything as we dont know what 2p+q would be

Combining, we know that numerator is positive, but still we dont know : denominator could be positive or negative depending on absolute values of p and q.

Re: If 2p not equal to -q, is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1? [#permalink]
06 Nov 2012, 03:41

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

eeakkan wrote:

If 2p not equal to -q, is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1?

(1) p<0 (2) q>0

Please help me with this. According to me:

ıf we arrange question: 2p-q>2p+q then -q>q and so (B) should be ok. Because if q>0, -q will be always <q.

If 2p not equal to -q, is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1?[/m]?

Is \frac{2p-q}{2p+q}>1? --> is 0>1-\frac{2p-q}{2p+q}? --> is 0>\frac{2p+q-2p+q}{2p+q}? --> is 0>\frac{2q}{2p+q}?

(1) p<0. Not sufficient.

(2) q>0. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) p<0 and q>0 --> the numerator (2q) is positive, but we cannot say whether the denominator {negative (2p)+positive (q)} is positive or negative. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

The problem with your solution is that when you are writing 2p-q>2p+q, you are actually multiplying both sides of inequality by 2p+q: never multiply an inequality by variable (or expression with variable) unless you know the sign of variable (or expression with variable). Because if 2p+q>0 you should write 2p-q>2p+q BUT if 2p+q<0, you should write 2p-q<2p+q, (flip the sign when multiplying by negative expression).

Re: If 2p not equal to -q, is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1? [#permalink]
08 Nov 2012, 21:00

1

This post received KUDOS

Bunuel wrote:

never multiply an inequality by variable (or expression with variable) unless you know the sign of variable (or expression with variable). Because if 2p+q>0 you should write 2p-q>2p+q BUT if 2p+q<0, you should write 2p-q<2p+q, (flip the sign when multiplying by negative expression).

Hi Bonuel, I multiplied both numerator and denominator on (2p+q), I think we can do that. Thus we have (4p^2-q^2)/(2p+q)^2>1 Now we can get rid of denominator as it is always positive. Eventually it comes to q^2+2pq<0.

Considering (1) and (2) together q^2<2pq or q<2p. And of course we don't know that.

You solution is much faster and better! Thanks _________________

MGMAT1 - 610 MGMAT2 - 670 MGMAT3 - 640

OMG

gmatclubot

Re: If 2p not equal to -q, is (2p-q)/(2p+q)>1?
[#permalink]
08 Nov 2012, 21:00

I couldn’t help myself but stay impressed. young leader who can now basically speak Chinese and handle things alone (I’m Korean Canadian by the way, so...