|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Status: Graduated
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1525
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
404
[0], given: 390
|
If xy < 4, is x < 2 ? (1) y > 1 (2) y > x For [#permalink]
 05 Dec 2009, 14:14
Question Stats:
45% (02:04) correct
54% (00:14) wrong based on 0 sessions
If xy < 4, is x < 2 ? (1) y > 1 (2) y > x For whatever reason, I didn't quite understand Sackmann's answer nor his explanation on this one. Perhaps it's just me. At any rate, here is the OA: Statement (1) is insufficient: if y = 1:25, x could be 3, in which case xy = 3:75 and x is greater than 2. However, x could be any number smaller than 2, in which case xy is still less than 4 and, of course, x is less than 2.
Statement (2) is sufficient. If xy < 4, at least one of the two numbers (or both) must be less than 2: if both numbers are greater than 2, xy is greater than 4. So, if y < x, and one of the numbers is greater than 2, that number
must be y. In other words, x must be less than 2. Choice (B) is correct. And, as always, any guidance will be much appreciated!
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1489
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
164
[0], given: 31
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
05 Dec 2009, 15:39
bmillan01 wrote: If xy < 4, is x < 2 ? (1) y > 1 (2) y > x For whatever reason, I didn't quite understand Sackmann's answer nor his explanation on this one. Perhaps it's just me. At any rate, here is the OA: Statement (1) is insufficient: if y = 1:25, x could be 3, in which case xy = 3:75 and x is greater than 2. However, x could be any number smaller than 2, in which case xy is still less than 4 and, of course, x is less than 2.
Statement (2) is sufficient. If xy < 4, at least one of the two numbers (or both) must be less than 2: if both numbers are greater than 2, xy is greater than 4. So, if y < x, and one of the numbers is greater than 2, that number
must be y. In other words, x must be less than 2. Choice (B) is correct. And, as always, any guidance will be much appreciated! which part needs a better explanation? why b or why not a?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: Graduated
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1525
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
404
[0], given: 390
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
05 Dec 2009, 16:43
Yeah, sorry about that. It makes sense now. His explanation for statement 2 threw me off a bit because he switches the variables in the equality. It should read "y > x" and not " y < x ." I didn't get the answer the first time around, and the explanation confused me.
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1489
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
164
[0], given: 31
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
05 Dec 2009, 18:23
bmillan01 wrote: Yeah, sorry about that. It makes sense now. His explanation for statement 2 threw me off a bit because he switches the variables in the equality. It should read "y > x" and not " y < x ." I didn't get the answer the first time around, and the explanation confused me. I would let him know if there is a mistake. I've had to do that a few times and he makes sure the error is corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: Graduated
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1525
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
404
[0], given: 390
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
05 Dec 2009, 22:44
I have noticed a few errors in his Foundation Set, but they're relatively minor, such as listing the wrong answer choice, but with the correct explanation. This question is the only one that created a problem for me. But have you used his other question sets (Challenge, Extreme Challenge, etc.)? If so, what did you think of them? Thanks for your advice.
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1489
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
164
[1] , given: 31
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
06 Dec 2009, 07:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
bmillan01 wrote: I have noticed a few errors in his Foundation Set, but they're relatively minor, such as listing the wrong answer choice, but with the correct explanation. This question is the only one that created a problem for me.
But have you used his other question sets (Challenge, Extreme Challenge, etc.)? If so, what did you think of them?
Thanks for your advice. Yes, I have used his other sets. His explanations are really simple and straightforward, which is what I like. I really learned a lot from his material. If you already score high in quant then his materials might not be as useful. Really focus on the explanations, formulas, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: Graduated
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1525
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
404
[0], given: 390
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61 [#permalink]
06 Dec 2009, 09:41
Well, I'm working my way up with the quant, so his Challenge Set seems like a good idea for my next step. Thanks, and Kudos!
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Jeff Sackmann's DS Foundation Set, #61
[#permalink]
06 Dec 2009, 09:41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
