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.

if so, then 1. would be m/z > 3, which is SUFF and 2. would be m/z < 4, which is INSUFF

so I would have said A

Please correct me if I'm wrong - my inequality skills are a bit rusty

No, it's not correct.

When you are writing m/z>-1 from m+z>0 you are actually dividing both parts of inequality by z: never multiply or reduce (divide) inequality by an unknown (a variable) unless you are sure of its sign since you do not know whether you must flip the sign of the inequality.

So if we knew that z>0 then m+z>0 --> m/z+1>0 and if we knew that z<0 then m+z>0 --> m/z+1<0.

(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.

Answer: C.

Hello Bunnel,

As you said in the above post.. "(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction -->" what should we have different signs...

(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.

Answer: C.

Hello Bunnel,

As you said in the above post.. "(1)+(2) Remember we can add inequalities with the sign in the same direction -->" what should we have different signs...

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 \(5>1\) --> \(3-5<4-1\).
_________________

Wow - Thank you agdimple333. That was quick and clear!

I was combining both to get that 3z < m < 4z but I did not add them to get that z > 0 as well. Now that I think again if m lies between 3z and 4z, then by this equation alone z has to be GT 0 because there is NO z < 0 that will ever satisfy this equation. Thanks again.
_________________

I'd like you to conform my solution to this problem. I got this right but not sure if I solved it correctly.

Stm 1) m -3z > 0

m > 3z --- > since both m and n can be negative or positive, it is insufficient.

Stm 2) 4z - m >0

4z > m ------ > again, since both m and n can be negative or positive, it is insufficient.

Together ) m > 3z and m < 4z ---- > 3z < m < 4z ---> if either m or n is negative, this inequality is impossible. Hence, this stm tells us that both m and n are positive. In other words, m + n > 0 --------- > Sufficient.

The answer is given as (C) Both statements together. I don't understand how. Can someone please explain? I think the answer is (E) Not sufficient with both (1) tells you that m > 3z (2) tells you that m < 4z. Either of the two cases taken individually is not sufficient. So Rule out (A), (B), (D) Therefore, 3z<m<4z when you combine the two. Now z can take both -ve and +ve values. So, m + z can be either -ve or +ve depending on the value of z. Hence, (E). Please help.

Stem 1: m>3z or m-3z >0 doesnt tell us anything about m+z. Not sufficient.

Stem 2: m<4z or m-4z <0 or 4z-m >0 tells us nothing again. Not sufficient.

combining, we get that 3z <m <4z also, if we add both equations, m-3z >0 4z-m >0

(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 one question when statements are combined, I got till the part z > 0 now I got confused here since in statement 1 I could prove it m>3z ( m is positive) but didn't how to apply z>0 to the second statement >>> 4z - m > 0

So when you reach that stage you can apply it to any of the statement and conclude its sufficient or you have to conclude using both statement separately?
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

(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 one question when statements are combined, I got till the part z > 0 now I got confused here since in statement 1 I could prove it m>3z ( m is positive) but didn't how to apply z>0 to the second statement >>> 4z - m > 0

So when you reach that stage you can apply it to any of the statement and conclude its sufficient or you have to conclude using both statement separately?

You got that m is positive with (1), so can stop there. If you combine you get that 4z>m>3z>0.
_________________

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...