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:

Stoolfi u only proved that for +ve values it suffices but not for -ve values, so u can say that B is sufficient only if its true for both +ve and -ve values but in this case its not. So I think B is not sufficient. What do u say?

B tells us, as I have shown, that x is a positive number that is less than 1.

1 will always be greater than all numbers less than 1, by definition.

You contend that I "only proved that for +ve values it suffices but not for -ve values", but B says that x is positive. In other words, there are no negative values of X that make B true.

I just came up with one other method of answering, by drawing graphs.

the first eq, x^2<1, is a U shaped graph and for all values of x<1, y<1 too. So, A is correct.

For the second eq, |x|<1/x, draw two graphs, y=|x|, which is a 45 degree straight line hinged at (0.0) making a V.
y=1/x is an inverse of y=x.
For all values of graph 1 < graph 2, |x|<1. So, B is correct as well.

I couldn’t help myself but stay impressed. young leader who can now basically speak Chinese and handle things alone (I’m Korean Canadian by the way, so...