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:

I'm actually a little lost as to why it's C and not B. Clearly statement 1 is insufficient because since this is a yes no question. We are getting different answers with different values so insufficient. However, with regards to statement 2 all values greater than 1 which is what statement 2 is saying are greater than 2. So statement 2 sufficient. Unless im not reading something correctly.

I'm actually a little lost as to why it's C and not B. Clearly statement 1 is insufficient because since this is a yes no question. We are getting different answers with different values so insufficient. However, with regards to statement 2 all values greater than 1 which is what statement 2 is saying are greater than 2. So statement 2 sufficient. Unless im not reading something correctly.

(x^2 + 9) / 3x > 2 1) Try -1 for No and 1 for Yes. 2) Try 2 for Yes and 3 for No. Combining 1) and 2) values between 1< x < 3 give only Yes answer. C is the answer. No need to simplify. Baten80 is right.
_________________

Consider me giving KUDOS, if you find my post helpful. If at first you don't succeed, you're running about average. ~Anonymous

This ds has been discussed thoroughly at http://gmatclub.com/forum/tricky-inequality-problem-97331.html. It inequality simplified there as [(x - 3)^2]/3 > 0. if i do not simplify then i can i solved it as: (1) if x = 2 then the (x/3+3/x) > 2 but if x = negative the (x/3+3/x) > 2 is not true. so Insufficient. (2) if x = 2 then (x/3+3/x) > 2 but if x = 1 then (x/3+3/x) > 2 is true. so insufficient.

for C x =2 and (x/3+3/x) > 2.

so why i will simplify as i am getting direct answer?

I would work with the inequality as is. It is symmetrical in the given form. Symmetry makes me comfortable because it makes it easy to see patterns. This question is a play on a standard concept that if x is a positive integer, minimum value of x + 1/x is 2. (which is actually derived from another concept: If the product of two positive integers is a constant (x*1/x = 1), their sum is least when they are equal (so x + 1/x is least when x = 1/x i.e. x = 1) Similarly, x/2 + 2/x has a minimum value of 2 when x = 2. x/3 + 3/x has a minimum value of 2 when x = 3. and so on...

In this question they don't say that x is a positive integer. So when x is negative, (x/3 + 3/x) is negative. When 0<x<=1, infinity > (x/3 + 3/x) >= 10/3 When 1<x<3, 10/3 > (x/3 + 3/x) > 2 When x >= 3, (x/3 + 3/x) >= 2

Notice that (x/3 + 3/x) does not take values between 0 and 2.
_________________

For any positive number 'a', (a+ 1/a )>=2 So , from the given options, all we need to do is ensure that x/3 is a positive quantity.

Hence B.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

OA for this question is given in the first post under the spoiler and it's C, not A.

To see that the second statement is not sufficient, consider x=3 for a NO answer (if x=3 then 3/3+3/3=2) and x=10 for an YES answer. Please refer to the solutions on the first page.

thanks for your explanation... can you explain the below mentioned rule with an example and its reasoning.

Never multiply or reduce 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 inequalit

Consider the inequality \(\frac{x^2-12}{x}>-1\)

Lets say I multiply both sides by 7x without considering the signs of the variable, what happens ?

\(x^2-12>-x\) \(x^2+x-12>0\) \((x+4)(x-3)>0\)

Which is true whenever x>3 (both terms positive) or when x<-4 (both terms negative)

But since we haven't kept the Sign of x in mind when we multiplied in step 1, the solution is wrong.

For eg. Take x=-1 which according to us is not a solution. It is easy to see ((-1)^2-12)/(-1)=11>-1. So it should be a solution Similarly take x=-6 which according to us is a solution, but ((-6)^2-12)/-6=-4<-1. So it should not be a solution

Very well illustrated why we shouldn't multiply an inequality with an expression of unknown sign. Just a few more things:

The given inequality \(\frac{x^2-12}{x}>-1\) is equivalent to \(\frac{x^2+x-12}{x}>0\). The sign of the ratio of two numbers is the same as the sign of their product. So, the previous inequality is equivalent to \(x(x^2+x-12)>0\), which in fact can be obtained from the original inequality by multiplying by \(x^2\), which we know for sure that it is positive, because x being in the denominator, \(x\neq0.\)

When given \(A/B>0,\) it means: 1) A and B have the same sign (either both positive or both negative) 2) Neither A nor B can be 0, A is in the numerator and the fraction is greater than 0, B is in the denominator. It is obvious that multiplying by B the given inequality leads to \(A>0\), incorrect. \(A/B>0\) is equivalent to \(AB>0,\, B\neq0.\)

When given \(A/B\geq0,\) it means: 1) A and B have the same sign (either both positive or both negative). A can be 0. 2) B cannot be 0, being in the denominator. It is obvious that multiplying by B the given inequality leads to \(A\geq0\), incorrect. \(A/B\geq0\) is equivalent to \(AB\geq0,\, B\neq0.\)

So, when we have to compare a fraction to 0, we can just compare the product of all the factors involved to 0. We should check carefully for values of the unknown if equality to 0 is allowed and we should not forget the values for which the denominator becomes 0.
_________________

PhD in Applied Mathematics Love GMAT Quant questions and running.

In general, if a number happens to be positive, the sum of the number and its reciprocal is always >=2. Here, statement 1 is not sufficient as it includes the negative portion of the number line. Statement 2 appears to be sufficient, but it fails alone since it includes x=3 in its set of solutions. At x=3, LHS becomes EQUAL to 2, which is not what the question is looking for. A holistic answer is obtained by clubbing both the statements!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

A simpler approach to the problem can be to use AM>=GM method (Arithmetic mean and Geometric mean)

For 2 positive numbers, the AM is always greater than either equal to the GM --> This method usually should strike when you see inequalities involving inverse fractions as is in our problem. Now simply looking at the equation and applying AM>=GM approach here:

(x/3 + 3/x)/2 >= sqrt(x/3 * 3/x) or x/3 + 3/x > 2. Now we just need to fix the numbers in a way that the basic math is not broken. With

A. x<3, x could be 0 (not defined situation in our equation) or x is -ve --> For sure this is not sufficient B. x>1 (gives us some hope to apply AM>=GM formula) BUT x=3 will still create the issue as LHS =2 which is not required. Hence, not sufficient

USING A and B => 1<x<3, for which the AM>GM eqn will always hold.

P.S. - This approach may help us save a lot of time if we are able to think back with the problem statement. Also, sometimes in PS questions, if we are asked for minimum values (given all the variables written in the equation are >0 or positive, this approach can come handy (if the equation simplifies which is generally the case as problems are always solvable )

For e.g. - We can look at a problem like what can be the maximum value of (21-2x)(x-1)(x-5) given that 5<x<10. We can immediately solve it by the method

AM>=GM or GM<=AM = cuberoot[(21-2x)(x-1)(x-5)]<= (21- 2x + x - 1 + x - 5)/3 = Max{(21-2x)(x-1)(x-5)} = 5^3 = 125

Nominator (x-3)^2 is NEVER negative, so expression is negative only when denominator 3x is negative, or simply when x is negative. Hence when x>0 our expression (x-3)^2/3x>0 is always positive EXCEPT when x=3, because at that case nominator (x-3)^2 becomes 0, thus expression becomes 0 and we need expression to be more then 0.

So we get that \(\frac{(x-3)^2}{3x}>0\) holds true when x>0 and x#3.

Let's move to the statements:

(1) x<3, tells us that x#3, but it's not enough, we need x to be positive besides that. Not sufficient.

(2) x>1, tell us that x positive, but it's not enough we need x not to be equal to 3. Not sufficient.

(1) + (2) 1<x<3 in this range x is positive and not equal to 3. Sufficient.

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...

Post-MBA I became very intrigued by how senior leaders navigated their career progression. It was also at this time that I realized I learned nothing about this during my...