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:

This post might help to get the ranges for (1) and (2) - "How to solve quadratic inequalities - Graphic approach": x2-4x-94661.html#p731476

If x is an integer, is |x| > 1?

First of all: is \(|x| > 1\) means is \(x<-1\) (-2, -3, -4, ...) or \(x>1\) (2, 3, 4, ...), so for YES answer \(x\) can be any integer but -1, 0, and 1.

(1) (1 - 2x)(1 + x) < 0 --> rewrite as \((2x-1)(x+1)>0\) (so that the coefficient of x^2 to be positive after expanding): roots are \(x=-1\) and \(x=\frac{1}{2}\) --> "\(>\)" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: \(x<-1\) and \(x>\frac{1}{2}\). \(x\) could still equal to 1, so not sufficient.

(2) (1 - x)(1 + 2x) < 0 --> rewrite as \((x-1)(2x+1)>0\): roots are \(x=-\frac{1}{2}\) and \(x=1\) --> "\(>\)" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: \(x<-\frac{1}{2}\) and \(x>1\). \(x\) could still equal to -1, so not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Intersection of the ranges from (1) and (2) is \(x<-1\) and \(x>1\). Sufficient.

roots are x=-1 and x=1/2 and --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-1 and x>1/2 ... can you please help me with this concept and what will happen if sign was "<"..further, will it be right in stating that when there is a positive sign, x is greater than the positive root and x is less than the negative root?

roots are x=-1 and x=1/2 and --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-1 and x>1/2 ... can you please help me with this concept and what will happen if sign was "<"..further, will it be right in stating that when there is a positive sign, x is greater than the positive root and x is less than the negative root?

This post might help to get the ranges for (1) and (2) - "How to solve quadratic inequalities - Graphic approach": x2-4x-94661.html#p731476

If x is an integer, is |x| > 1?

First of all: is \(|x| > 1\) means is \(x<-1\) (-2, -3, -4, ...) or \(x>1\) (2, 3, 4, ...), so for YES answer \(x\) can be any integer but -1, 0, and 1.

(1) (1 - 2x)(1 + x) < 0 --> rewrite as \((2x-1)(x+1)>0\) (so that the coefficient of x^2 to be positive after expanding): roots are \(x=-1\) and \(x=\frac{1}{2}\) --> "\(>\)" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: \(x<-1\) and \(x>\frac{1}{2}\). \(x\) could still equal to 1, so not sufficient.

(2) (1 - x)(1 + 2x) < 0 --> rewrite as \((x-1)(2x+1)>0\): roots are \(x=-\frac{1}{2}\) and \(x=1\) --> "\(>\)" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: \(x<-\frac{1}{2}\) and \(x>1\). \(x\) could still equal to -1, so not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Intersection of the ranges from (1) and (2) is \(x<-1\) and \(x>1\). Sufficient.

I have a question regarding the above solution let's say in statement 1, when you solve the inequality why do you say that x<-1 AND x >1/2

why is this an AND condition ....why not OR? If this were a quadratic equation x (can be) = 1/2 OR -1 OR both For inequality why is the same thing an AND as opposed to OR?

Solving compounded inequalities - any efficient approach? [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Oct 2013, 19:58

If x is an integer, is |x|>1?

(1) (1−2x)(1+x)<0

(2) (1−x)(1+2x)<0

Hi all - I tried this problem on a GMAT club test and I didn't really understand the method. Any quick approaches to finding the solution to each inequality? Is there any quick method to figure out the range of values of x for which statement 1 and 2 will be accurate?

Help appreciated! I'd like to know the quickest, most efficient way to approach such problems!

Re: Solving compounded inequalities - any efficient approach? [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Oct 2013, 01:05

Expert's post

sidvish wrote:

If x is an integer, is |x|>1?

(1) (1−2x)(1+x)<0

(2) (1−x)(1+2x)<0

Hi all - I tried this problem on a GMAT club test and I didn't really understand the method. Any quick approaches to finding the solution to each inequality? Is there any quick method to figure out the range of values of x for which statement 1 and 2 will be accurate?

Help appreciated! I'd like to know the quickest, most efficient way to approach such problems!

Cheers

Merging similar topics. Please refer to the solution above.

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...

I’m a little delirious because I’m a little sleep deprived. But whatever. I have to write this post because... I’M IN! Funnily enough, I actually missed the acceptance phone...

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...