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.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

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:

I get B but I am not sure. OA pls? Following is the reasoning: stmt 1: we just have two points on the x-axis. we can draw many lines via these two points and having different slopes. Insuff.

stmt2: we have the intersection point in the first quadrant. Now, draw a line perpendicular from (7,2) to the x-axis. This will be a vertical line. Now select two points on the axis just to right and left of (7,0) on x-axis. Let these points be the x-intercepts of the lines. Now the slope of line with a greater x-intercept say, (7.0001, 0 ) will always be -ve [in order to intersect (7,2)] and the slope of the line with a smaller x-intercept say (6.9999, 0 ) will always be +ve [in order to intersect (7,2)]

Approach of economist is nice. Lets do it more mathematically. 1)insuff. No need to explain. 2)insuff. No need to explain.

together line k=> y=mx+n line j=> y=tx+y we know from 1 that n is greater than y. And we know from 2 that they are intersecting at point (7,2). That makes 2=7m+n 2=7t+y 7m+n=7t+y 7m+n<7t+n 7m<7t m<t

In y = mx + b equation, m = slope and b is the Y intercept. From your represenation, how can we say that

maliyeci wrote:

we know from 1 that n is greater than y.

when variables n and y are the Y intercepts. Not X intercepts.

Can you please explain how you made this Inequality based on n > y(assuming y intercepts of L > y intercept of K). I am confused.

maliyeci wrote:

7m+n<7t+n 7m<7t m<t

I beg your pardon for the intercepts. Yes you are rigth. I gave the Y intercept. The x intercepts are respectively; -n/m and -y/t But they are sufficient to find an answer. That is the solution. 7m+n=2 n=2-7m n/m=2/m-7 same as for the other y/t=2/t-7 since -n/m is greater than -y/t; y/t is greater than n/m so 2/m-7>2/t-7 2/m>2/t so we can find the solution C is suff.

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but seems that the answer should be E.

First of all to solve this question think that the best way is graphic approach:

We all agree that (1) and (2) alone are not sufficient.

Lets combine --> draw only X-axis. k intercept is greater than j intercept --> k intercept (k1) point right to j intercept point (j1) --> Interception of lines is above X-axis (point 7;2) --> it will give us only three possible ways to draw the lines: A. j has negative slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because j is closer to vertical line); B. j has positive slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k<slope of j; C. j has positive slope, k has positive slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because k is closer to vertical line);

So (1)+(2) not sufficient. Answer E.

BUT the way you were solving also should get E:

f(k)=mx+n f(j)=tx+p (1) The x-intercept of line k is greater than the x-intercept of line j --> 0=mx+n; 0=tx+p --> -n/m>-p/t or n/m<p/t --> not sufficient; (2) Lines k and j intersect at (7, 2) 2=7m+n; 2=7t+p --> 7m+n=7t+p -->not sufficient;

Combining the way you did: n=2-7m --> n/m=2/m-7 p=2-7t --> p/t=2/t-7 n/m<p/t --> 2/m-7<2/t-7 --> 1/m<1/t --> (t-m)/mt<0 And here is the catch, from above statement you can not determine whether m>t or not. t=1<m=3 statement is true and t=1>m=-3 statement is also true. Answer E.
_________________

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but seems that the answer should be E.

First of all to solve this question think that the best way is graphic approach:

We all agree that (1) and (2) alone are not sufficient.

Lets combine --> draw only X-axis. k intercept is greater than j intercept --> k intercept (k1) point right to j intercept point (j1) --> Interception of lines is above X-axis (point 7;2) --> it will give us only three possible ways to draw the lines: A. j has negative slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because j is closer to vertical line); B. j has positive slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k<slope of j; C. j has positive slope, k has positive slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because k is closer to vertical line);

So (1)+(2) not sufficient. Answer E.

BUT the way you were solving also should get E:

f(k)=mx+n f(j)=tx+p (1) The x-intercept of line k is greater than the x-intercept of line j --> 0=mx+n; 0=tx+p --> -n/m>-p/t or n/m<p/t --> not sufficient; (2) Lines k and j intersect at (7, 2) 2=7m+n; 2=7t+p --> 7m+n=7t+p -->not sufficient;

Combining the way you did: n=2-7m --> n/m=2/m-7 p=2-7t --> p/t=2/t-7 n/m<p/t --> 2/m-7<2/t-7 --> 1/m<1/t --> (t-m)/mt<0 And here is the catch, from above statement you can not determine whether m>t or not. t=1<m=3 statement is true and t=1>m=-3 statement is also true. Answer E.

This exactly why I said IMO E . Thanks for explanation Bunuel!

Lets combine --> draw only X-axis. k intercept is greater than j intercept --> k intercept (k1) point right to j intercept point (j1) --> Interception of lines is above X-axis (point 7;2) --> it will give us only three possible ways to draw the lines: A. j has negative slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because j is closer to vertical line); B. j has positive slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k<slope of j; C. j has positive slope, k has positive slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because k is closer to vertical line);

Hi Bunuel,

Request you to please look at the colored portion again and confirm if its correct. Isn't in Option A->Slope of j > Slope of K. If not, please provide your reasoning, may be I'm lacking some concept.

Lets combine --> draw only X-axis. k intercept is greater than j intercept --> k intercept (k1) point right to j intercept point (j1) --> Interception of lines is above X-axis (point 7;2) --> it will give us only three possible ways to draw the lines: A. j has negative slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because j is closer to vertical line); B. j has positive slope, k has negative slope --> slope of k<slope of j; C. j has positive slope, k has positive slope --> slope of k>slope of j, (because k is closer to vertical line);

Hi Bunuel,

Request you to please look at the colored portion again and confirm if its correct. Isn't in Option A->Slope of j > Slope of K. If not, please provide your reasoning, may be I'm lacking some concept.

thanks

A steeper incline indicates a higher absolute value of the slope.

So, if both lines have positive slope, then the line which is steeper has greater slope. If both lines have negative slope, then the line which is steeper has greater absolute value slope, its slope is "more negative", so less than the slope of another line.

It’s quickly approaching two years since I last wrote anything on this blog. A lot has happened since then. When I last posted, I had just gotten back from...

Since my last post, I’ve got the interview decisions for the other two business schools I applied to: Denied by Wharton and Invited to Interview with Stanford. It all...