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:

The OA is D. Statement 2 is obviously sufficient. I don't understand how statement 1 is sufficient?

Take the example of x = -2.

-2(2) = 2(-2) - therefore x|x| = 2x

Take the example of x = -3.

-3(3) < 2(-3) - therefore x|x| < 2x

You did all the work

Yes, answer is D

With the work I did above, I thought the answer would be B? I found 2 negative integers for statement 1, 1 which satisfies the condition and one which does not, meaning that statement 1 should be insufficient? _________________

The OA is D. Statement 2 is obviously sufficient. I don't understand how statement 1 is sufficient?

Take the example of x = -2.

-2(2) = 2(-2) - therefore x|x| = 2x

Take the example of x = -3.

-3(3) < 2(-3) - therefore x|x| < 2x

You did all the work

Yes, answer is D

With the work I did above, I thought the answer would be B? I found 2 negative integers for statement 1, 1 which satisfies the condition and one which does not, meaning that statement 1 should be insufficient?

Yes, maybe I should read your entire post. Sorry about that. Yes, the answer should be B Where did you find this problem? _________________

Factorials were someone's attempt to make math look exciting!!!

Hmm. What is the explanation in the back of the book for how they arrived at D? Because even moreover, if you try -1 the inequality is > and if you try -3 the inequality is < and if you try -2, it is an equality --> Its all over the charts!! _________________

Factorials were someone's attempt to make math look exciting!!!

Is this a proof (1) is sufficient ?? You just test it for 2 values (why -1 and -2 by the way ?) and therefore it is sufficient ? Are you sure it works for x=-1/8 ?

I would say something like: if x<0, then x |x| <0

And since 2^x is positive, then we have x |x| < 2^x (this is no longer that plugging numbers )

The x is small, and half way up the 2, meaning it is an exponent. I hope that helps. If it were 2x, then the x would be on same line as the 2.

My understanding is that this is printed incorrectly in earlier printings of the Guide, and was later corrected. In some books, it is actually printed as 2x, and not as 2^x, in the question (though not in the solution section of the book). _________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

It’s been a long time, since I posted. A busy schedule at office and the GMAT preparation, fully tied up with all my free hours. Anyways, now I’m back...

One of the main strengths of Rotman comes from its diversity and when we speak of diversity, we mean it in terms of class distribution and the number of...