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:

How did you so quickly come to this conclusion that "for all other values of 'y' the equation 'x(1-y)/y' will be '-ve'?

Also, how can I strengthen my inequalitites knowledge (for GMAT).

Please explain in detail.

OK, first of all get rid of x, it's positive thus won't affect anything in the case of sign. We have (1-y)/y: even not doing any deep inquires it's obvious that we have an inequality with y and knowing nothing about it, so we can not conclude whether (1-y)/y positive or not. But if we just for practice want to determine when inequality (1-y)/y>0 holds true we can do the following:

We have 1-y and y, thus we have two check points 1 and 0 (check points y-1=0 --> y=1 and y=0). We should check three cases for (1-y)/y:

1. y<0 --> denominator y is negative, nominator is positive 1-negative=1+positive=positive, so (1-y)/y negative (positive/negative=negative)

2. 0<y<1 --> denominator y is positive, nominator also positive 1-positive number less than 1=positive, so (1-y)/y positive (positive/positive)

3. y>1 --> denominator y is positive, nominator is negative 1-positive number more than 1=negative, so (1-y)/y negative (negative/positive)

We have that (1-y)/y (and thus x(1-y)/y) is positive when y is in range (0;1) and negative when y<0 or y>1.

So statement (2) gives us two scenarios for x(1-y)/y, hence not sufficient.

Quick question - couldn't we simply rewrite the question to determine y?

\(X/y>x\) could be simply rewritten as \(x/x>y\)and therefore is \(1>y\)?

1- Tells us y is less than 1 2 - Tell us nothing about Y

Therefore A?

x>0, (x/y)>x can be simplified this way x(1-y)/y>0 --> as x>0 it doesn't affect the sign of x(1-y)/y>0, so we can get rid of it --> (1-y)/y>0. This is maximum we can to do before considering the statements.

We can NO WAY rewrite x>0, (x/y)>x as "x/x>y --> 1>y" Because at this stage we don't know the sign of y. _________________

We can NO WAY rewrite x>0, (x/y)>x as "x/x>y --> 1>y" Because at this stage we don't know the sign of y.

Exactly which is where the conditions 1 and 2 come in. Since we don't know the sign we are now asking.

Is 1 > y?

Condition 1 says yes Condition 2 mentions nothing about Y

Is 1 > y is much easier to answer than is (x/y)>y

Not so. Let's consider another example:

Is 1/y>1?

(1) y<0.5 (2) y<0.3

According to your logic you would rewrite the statement "is 1/y>1?" as "is y<1"?

Afterwards you consider the statements:

(1) y<0.5 according to your logic you would say: yes y<0.5<1 so sufficient; (2) y<0.3 according to your logic you would say: yes y<0.3<1 so sufficient;

And thus you would answer D, both are sufficient.

BUT it's WRONG: answer to my rearranged question is E not D

In our initial question it just happened to be that the statements given didn't revealed the mistake you've made in simplification, BUT generally your way is not wright. You can not multiply inequality by the variable not knowing the sign of it. _________________

considering statement 1, we can say that y>0 and a fraction. As we now know the sign of y we can safe cross multiply. Therefore, the x/y > x evaluates to --> x>xy. If y is a fraction, x is obviously a greater that xy because anything multiplied with fraction is lower than that anything i.e. x. So st1 is sufficient

considering 2 - there is no information given about y so we cannot evaluate and prove x/y > x

Therefore, answer is A

Hope it helped

______________________________________ COMMENTS and KUDOS are helpful

I have gone through everyone'e explanations and probably have found a easier solution. What do you guys suggest? If x > 0 We can rephrase x/y > x ---> 1/y > 1 ( since x is positive just dividing x on both sides) Hence the question is : 1/y > 1 Statement 1: 0 < y < 1 since y is a proper fraction, therefore ---> 1/proper fraction > 1 Statement 2: x > 1 --- > no mention of x ---> insufficient

I did the same. Is it justified? Experts please comment.

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. _________________

Part 2 of the GMAT: How I tackled the GMAT and improved a disappointing score Apologies for the month gap. I went on vacation and had to finish up a...

So the last couple of weeks have seen a flurry of discussion in our MBA class Whatsapp group around Brexit, the referendum and currency exchange. Most of us believed...

This highly influential bestseller was first published over 25 years ago. I had wanted to read this book for a long time and I finally got around to it...