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:
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). _________________
GMAT Tutor in Toronto
If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com