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:

Re: 254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0. [#permalink]
09 Mar 2011, 14:35

Expert's post

banksy wrote:

254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0.

If x < y < z, is xyz > 0?

(1) xy > 0 --> x and y have the same sign. Now, if both x and y are positive, then we would have that 0<x<y<z, so in this case all three would be positive, which would mean that xyz>0, but if both x and y are negative, then z could be positive as well as negative thus xyz may or may not be positive. Not sufficient.

(2) xz > 0 --> x and z have the same sign and as x < y < z then all three have the same sign: if all of them are positive then xyz>0 but if all of them are negative then xyz<0. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) It's still possible all three to be positive as well as negative. Not sufficient.

Re: 254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0. [#permalink]
18 Mar 2011, 04:30

This one is quite simple to be honest...think about it. The question is asking if either x, y or z are negative. If one of them is negative, then xyz = -ve. More importantly if z is negative then all three numbers are negative. Statement 1 says xy>0 so they can be either positive or negative. INSUFF Statement 2 says xz>0 ....same as above. 1+2 is the same deal. So E

Re: 254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0. [#permalink]
29 Apr 2014, 02:04

Bunuel wrote:

banksy wrote:

254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0.

If x < y < z, is xyz > 0?

(1) xy > 0 --> x and y have the same sign. Now, if both x and y are positive, then we would have that 0<x<y<z, so in this case all three would be positive, which would mean that xyz>0, but if both x and y are negative, then z could be positive as well as negative thus xyz may or may not be positive. Not sufficient.

(2) xz > 0 --> x and z have the same sign and as x < y < z then all three have the same sign: if all of them are positive then xyz>0 but if all of them are negative then xyz<0. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) It's still possible all three to be positive as well as negative. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

what is wrong with my approach

Taking 1 & 2 xy -xz > 0 x(y-z) > 0

either x > 0 or y > z y > z is discarded because it contradicts the stem therefore x > 0 therefor y & z is also > 0

Re: 254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0. [#permalink]
29 Apr 2014, 03:01

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

abid1986 wrote:

Bunuel wrote:

banksy wrote:

254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0.

If x < y < z, is xyz > 0?

(1) xy > 0 --> x and y have the same sign. Now, if both x and y are positive, then we would have that 0<x<y<z, so in this case all three would be positive, which would mean that xyz>0, but if both x and y are negative, then z could be positive as well as negative thus xyz may or may not be positive. Not sufficient.

(2) xz > 0 --> x and z have the same sign and as x < y < z then all three have the same sign: if all of them are positive then xyz>0 but if all of them are negative then xyz<0. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) It's still possible all three to be positive as well as negative. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

what is wrong with my approach

Taking 1 & 2 xy -xz > 0 x(y-z) > 0

either x > 0 or y > z y > z is discarded because it contradicts the stem therefore x > 0 therefor y & z is also > 0

Hence xyz > 0 ,Sufficient.

First of all you cannot subtract xz > 0 from xy > 0, because the signs of the inequalities are in the same direction, you can only add them.

Re: 254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0. [#permalink]
29 Apr 2014, 03:13

1

This post received KUDOS

abid1986 wrote:

Bunuel wrote:

banksy wrote:

254. If x < y < z, is xyz > 0? (1) xy > 0. (2) xz > 0.

If x < y < z, is xyz > 0?

(1) xy > 0 --> x and y have the same sign. Now, if both x and y are positive, then we would have that 0<x<y<z, so in this case all three would be positive, which would mean that xyz>0, but if both x and y are negative, then z could be positive as well as negative thus xyz may or may not be positive. Not sufficient.

(2) xz > 0 --> x and z have the same sign and as x < y < z then all three have the same sign: if all of them are positive then xyz>0 but if all of them are negative then xyz<0. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) It's still possible all three to be positive as well as negative. Not sufficient.

Answer: E.

what is wrong with my approach

Taking 1 & 2 xy -xz > 0 x(y-z) > 0

either x > 0 or y > z y > z is discarded because it contradicts the stem therefore x > 0 therefor y & z is also > 0

Hence xyz > 0 ,Sufficient.

Note From Bunuel:

ADDING/SUBTRACTING INEQUALITIES:

You can only add inequalities when their signs are in the same direction:

If a>b and c>d (signs in same direction: > and >) --> a+c>b+d. Example: 3<4 and 2<5 --> 3+2<4+5.

You can only apply subtraction when their signs are in the opposite directions:

If a>b and c<d (signs in opposite direction: > and <) --> a-c>b-d (take the sign of the inequality you subtract from). Example: 3<4 and 5>1 --> 3-5<4-1.

1. My favorite football team to infinity and beyond, the Dallas Cowboys, currently have the best record in the NFL and I’m literally riding on cloud 9 because...

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...