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:
= > now if we mutiply both sides by a +ve number, then the inequality sign remains same and if we multiply both sides witha -ve number, the inequality sign changes. as the sign remains same, after multiplying by V (mv < pv ) , so V >0
(2) m < 0
if v is -ve mv >0 and if v is +ve mv <0 ; as mv < 0 , v >0
= > now if we mutiply both sides by a +ve number, then the inequality sign remains same and if we multiply both sides witha -ve number, the inequality sign changes. as the sign remains same, after multiplying by V (mv < pv ) , so V >0
(2) m < 0
if v is -ve mv >0 and if v is +ve mv <0 ; as mv < 0 , v >0
Excellent point about the inequality and sign change you brought up.
Even if we take part of the original inequality mv < pv we still have v(m-p) < 0 and we know that m < p. So V has to be +ve.
DS question from Gmatprep - please provide explanation with answers:
if mv < pv < 0, is v > 0? (1) m < p (2) m < 0
First of all, since mv < pv, we know that pv - mv > 0, therefore v(p-m) > 0. So whatever is the sign for (p-m), it should be the same as that of v so that their product remains positive:
(1) m < p, therefore p-m > 0, so if this is positive, then v is positive. Suff.
(2) m is negative, since the product of mv from the question is negative, v must be positive.
Re: Quant - DS from Gmatprep - inequality.. [#permalink]
26 Feb 2011, 12:34
ssandeepan wrote:
IMO D.
if mv < pv < 0, is v > 0? (1) m < p
= > now if we mutiply both sides by a +ve number, then the inequality sign remains same and if we multiply both sides witha -ve number, the inequality sign changes. as the sign remains same, after multiplying by V (mv < pv ) , so V >0
(2) m < 0
if v is -ve mv >0 and if v is +ve mv <0 ; as mv < 0 , v >0
There are various ways to solve this questions. I took the longer route of picking values for variables which helped me avoid mistake I would usually make in 'visualizing' inequalities. Although you could reach the same conclusion by solving the inequalities by subtracting a term (and thus avoiding the flipping of inequality sign required when multiplying/dividing with a -ve variable), the solution you provides is just excellent. A simple observation of the original question and the first statement already saves a ton of calculations and mistakes. Valuable point! Kudos! _________________
-DK --------------------------------------------------------- If you like what you read then give a Kudos! Diagnostic Test: 620 The past is a guidepost, not a hitching post. ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: if mv < pv < 0, is v > 0? (1) m < p (2) m < 0 [#permalink]
09 Jan 2014, 19:22
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email. _________________
Re: If mv < pv < 0, is v > 0? [#permalink]
10 Jan 2014, 02:09
Expert's post
2
This post was BOOKMARKED
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?
Given: \(mv<pv<0\) --> two cases:
If \(v>0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m<p<0\); If \(v<0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m>p>0\) (flip the sign when dividing by negative value).
(1) m < p --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient. (2) m < 0 --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.
As I’m halfway through my second year now, graduation is now rapidly approaching. I’ve neglected this blog in the last year, mainly because I felt I didn’...
Perhaps known best for its men’s basketball team – winners of five national championships, including last year’s – Duke University is also home to an elite full-time MBA...
Hilary Term has only started and we can feel the heat already. The two weeks have been packed with activities and submissions, giving a peek into what will follow...