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:

(1) m - 3z > 0. Insufficient on its own. (2) 4z - m > 0. Insufficient on its own.

(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction --> \(m-3z+4z-m>0\) --> \(z>0\), so \(z\) is positive. From (1) \(m>3z=positive\), so \(m\) is positive too (\(m\) is more than some positive number \(3z\), so it's positive) --> \(m+z=positive+positive>0\). Sufficient.

When I took both statements and in my head made the stipulations, I ended up with 3z<m<4z, but that did not yield the right answer. Can you tell me what I am missing doing this vs. actually adding the equations?

(1) m - 3z > 0. Insufficient on its own. (2) 4z - m > 0. Insufficient on its own.

(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction --> \(m-3z+4z-m>0\) --> \(z>0\), so \(z\) is positive. From (1) \(m>3z=positive\), so \(m\) is positive too (\(m\) is more than some positive number \(3z\), so it's positive) --> \(m+z=positive+positive>0\). Sufficient.

When I took both statements and in my head made the stipulations, I ended up with 3z<m<4z, but that did not yield the right answer. Can you tell me what I am missing doing this vs. actually adding the equations?

You missed the last step: from 3z<4z it follows that z>0, thus 3z=positive --> (3z=positive)<m --> m=positive --> m+z=positive.
_________________

(1) m - 3z > 0. Insufficient on its own. (2) 4z - m > 0. Insufficient on its own.

(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction --> \(m-3z+4z-m>0\) --> \(z>0\), so \(z\) is positive. From (1) \(m>3z=positive\), so \(m\) is positive too (\(m\) is more than some positive number \(3z\), so it's positive) --> \(m+z=positive+positive>0\). Sufficient.

I have a doubt: 1 & 2 are obviously insuff. Combining 1 & 2 we get z>0. Now according to 1) m-3z>0 (so we get m>0). My doubt starts here 2) says 4z-m>0 so when z>0, m>0 or m<0. For eg z=2 & m=-2, we will still get 4z-m>0 So according to me answer should be E or am I missing something here.

(1) m - 3z > 0. Insufficient on its own. (2) 4z - m > 0. Insufficient on its own.

(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction --> \(m-3z+4z-m>0\) --> \(z>0\), so \(z\) is positive. From (1) \(m>3z=positive\), so \(m\) is positive too (\(m\) is more than some positive number \(3z\), so it's positive) --> \(m+z=positive+positive>0\). Sufficient.

I have a doubt: 1 & 2 are obviously insuff. Combining 1 & 2 we get z>0. Now according to 1) m-3z>0 (so we get m>0). My doubt starts here 2) says 4z-m>0 so when z>0, m>0 or m<0. For eg z=2 & m=-2, we will still get 4z-m>0 So according to me answer should be E or am I missing something here.

Bunuel my line of reasoning was that the numbers are aligned like 3z<m<4z. Now m falls between 3z and 4z which can only be possible if both m and z are positive ( as the multiplier is positive). Now adding two positive numbers will always be more than 0 . Hence both are sufficient to prove

(1) m - 3z > 0. Insufficient on its own. (2) 4z - m > 0. Insufficient on its own.

(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction --> \(m-3z+4z-m>0\) --> \(z>0\), so \(z\) is positive. From (1) \(m>3z=positive\), so \(m\) is positive too (\(m\) is more than some positive number \(3z\), so it's positive) --> \(m+z=positive+positive>0\). Sufficient.

Do you think algebraic approach works even if an answer choice is E in such similar questions? Or do we have to resort to graphic approach/number picking then? Any tips on how to attack these questions in general?

Thanks
_________________

Please contact me for super inexpensive quality private tutoring

My journey V46 and 750 -> http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-journey-to-46-on-verbal-750overall-171722.html#p1367876

Do you think algebraic approach works even if an answer choice is E in such similar questions? Or do we have to resort to graphic approach/number picking then? Any tips on how to attack these questions in general?

Thanks

IMO, these questions require a combination of algebraic and number plugging in order to arrive at the final answer. Without looking at a particular question, it is very dangerous to define your strategy.

I did not use any graphical method as such but did employ number plugging for proving that statements 1 and 2 are not sufficient on their own and then use algebra to show that when the 2 statements are combined, we get z>0.
_________________

Forget conventional ways of solving math questions. In DS, Variable approach is the easiest and quickest way to find the answer without actually solving the problem. Remember equal number of variables and independent equations ensures a solution.

Is m+z > 0

(1) m-3z > 0 (2) 4z-m > 0

In the original condition, there are 2 variables(m,z), which should match with the number of equations. So you need 2 equations. For 1) 1 equation, for 2) 1 equation, which is likely to make C the answer. In 1)&2), add the 2 equations, which is m-3z+4z+m>0, z>0. Then m>z>0 is derived from m>3z>z, which is m>0. So, m+z>0 is always yes and sufficient. Therefore, the answer is C.

-> For cases where we need 2 more equations, such as original conditions with “2 variables”, or “3 variables and 1 equation”, or “4 variables and 2 equations”, we have 1 equation each in both 1) and 2). Therefore, there is 70% chance that C is the answer, while E has 25% chance. These two are the majority. In case of common mistake type 3,4, the answer may be from A, B or D but there is only 5% chance. Since C is most likely to be the answer using 1) and 2) separately according to DS definition (It saves us time). Obviously there may be cases where the answer is A, B, D or E.
_________________

with the first statement, if you apply the numbers -1,0 and 1. You will conclude that m is positive when z is positive. Hence I thought one is sufficient.

When I look at such question, I know I will figure out something if I consider both statements together. I feel comfortable with applying inequalities rules there. But I find it harder to approach individual statements in such cases. I get lost in figuring out cases to reject (or approve) one statement on its own. At times, I take time and eventually rush onto considering both statements together.

Can you please help me out if I'm lacking some approach or concepts?

There really isn't one suitable method for all inequality questions. The approach depends on the kind of question. Very rarely will I plug in numbers here to find cases where the inequality holds or does not hold. This is how I will do this question:

"Is m+z > 0?" Here I think that m and z could both be positive or one of them could be positive with greater absolute value than the other. If both are negative, this doesn't hold. Go on to stmnts.

(1) m-3z > 0

Here, I will try to segregate the variables to get relation between them. m > 3z The moment I see this, I naturally go to the number line.

Is it possible to visualise such problems rather than drawing on number line? I think that will be prone to errors.

Besides, I have noticed that problem statements concerning number line involves too many possibilities as you explained in detail. For the same reason, I feel these questions are designed to put the test taker in a situation where it consumes more than required time? My gut will always push me to rush on these questions therefore.

Rephrasing the question is vital I guess. Let me know if the only way through such questions is to draw the number line and analyze?

Is it possible to visualise such problems rather than drawing on number line? I think that will be prone to errors.

Besides, I have noticed that problem statements concerning number line involves too many possibilities as you explained in detail. For the same reason, I feel these questions are designed to put the test taker in a situation where it consumes more than required time? My gut will always push me to rush on these questions therefore.

Rephrasing the question is vital I guess. Let me know if the only way through such questions is to draw the number line and analyze?

Cheers!

Posted from my mobile device

Most questions can be solved using many different methods.

You can use the graphical approach discussed by walker here: is-m-z-75657.html

As for too many possibilities on the number line, it seems that way when I draw it out but here is how I see it in my mind.

Stmtn 1: There are only 2 cases: z is positive (or 0) or z is negative. If z is to the right of 0, 3z is further to the right of z and m is further to the right of 3z. m has to be positive. If z is to the left of 0, 3z is further to the left of z but m is anywhere on the right of 3z. m could be negative or positive. That's all I need to know.
_________________

Happy New Year everyone! Before I get started on this post, and well, restarted on this blog in general, I wanted to mention something. For the past several months...

It’s quickly approaching two years since I last wrote anything on this blog. A lot has happened since then. When I last posted, I had just gotten back from...

Happy 2017! Here is another update, 7 months later. With this pace I might add only one more post before the end of the GSB! However, I promised that...

The words of John O’Donohue ring in my head every time I reflect on the transformative, euphoric, life-changing, demanding, emotional, and great year that 2016 was! The fourth to...