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:

Probably the best way to solve this problem is plug-in method. Though there are two properties worth to remember: 1. Always true: \(|x+y|\leq{|x|+|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds for \(xy\geq{0}\) (or simply when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign);

2. Always true: \(|x-y|\geq{|x|-|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds for \(xy>{0}\) (so when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign) and \(|x|>|y|\) (simultaneously). (Our case)

So, the question basically asks whether we can exclude "=" scenario from the second property.

(1) y < x --> we can not determine the signs of \(x\) and \(y\). Not sufficient. (2) xy < 0 --> "=" scenario is excluded from the second property, thus \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\). Sufficient.

Funny, but I remember form university that |a-b|>||a|-|b||>|a|-|b|, therefore the above inequality is valid for all numbers a,b can somebody verify the inequality?

Basically the question asks whether the distance between the two points x and y on the line is greater than the difference between the individual distances of x and y from 0.

\(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\)?

(1) \(y<x\), 3 possible cases for \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\):

A. ---------------\(0\)---\(y\)---\(x\)---, \(0<y<x\) --> in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>x-y\) --> \(0>0\). Which is wrong; B. ---------\(y\)---\(0\)---------\(x\)---, \(y<0<x\) --> in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>x+y\) --> \(y<0\). Which is right, as we consider the range \(y<0<x\); C. ---\(y\)---\(x\)---\(0\)--------------, \(y<x<0\) --> in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>-x+y\) --> \(x>y\). Which is right, as we consider the range \(y<0<x\).

Two different answers. Not sufficient.

(2) \(xy<0\), means \(x\) and \(y\) have different signs, hence 2 cases for \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\):

A. ----\(y\)-----\(0\)-------\(x\)---, \(y<0<x\) --> in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>x+y\) --> \(y<0\). Which is right, as we consider the range \(y<0<x\); B. ----\(x\)-----\(0\)-------\(y\)---, \(x<0<y\) --> in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(-x+y>-x-y\) --> \(y>0\). Which is right, as we consider the range \(x<0<y\).

This is a very simple question. !x-y!>|x|-|y| can only happen if both the numbers are of different signs.

If xy<0 then these numbers are of opposite signs. Hope this clears.

X=2 y=3 then |x-y|=|x|-|y| if x=-2 and y = 3 then |x-y|>|x|-|y|

Red part is not correct \(|x-y|>{|x|-|y|}\) also holds true when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign and the magnitude of \(y\) is more than that of \(x\) (so for \(|y|>|x|\)). Example: \(x=2\) and \(y=3\) --> \(|x-y|=1>-1={|x|-|y|}\); \(x=-2\) and \(y=-3\) --> \(|x-y|=1>-1={|x|-|y|}\).

Actually the only case when \(|x-y|>{|x|-|y|}\) does not hold true is when \(xy>{0}\) (so when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign) and \(|x|>|y|\) (simultaneously). In this case \(|x-y|={|x|-|y|}\) (as shown in my previous post). Example: \(x=3\) and \(y=2\) --> \(|x-y|=1={|x|-|y|}\); \(x=-3\) and \(y=-2\) --> \(|x-y|=1={|x|-|y|}\).

Bunuel, for 1.B when .. y ..0 .. x, you said \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>x+y\). and 1.c when ... y ... x ... 0, you said \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>-x+y\) --> \(x>y\).

Can you explain this a little bit more? How did you go about removing the absolute signs for this scenarios?

Thanks for your help.

Consider absolute value of some expression - \(|some \ expression|\): If the expression in absolute value sign (||) is negative or if \(some \ expression<0\) then \(|some \ expression|=-(some \ expression)\); If the expression in absolute value sign (||) is positive or if \(some \ expression>0\) then \(|some \ expression|=some \ expression\).

(It's the same as for \(|x|\): if \(x<0\), then \(|x|=-x\) and if \(x>0\), then \(|x|=x\))

We have \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\):

For B: ---------\(y\)---\(0\)---------\(x\)---, \(y<0<x\) (\(x>y\)) --> so as \(x-y>0\), then \(|x-y|=x-y\). Also as \(x>0\), then \(|x|=x\) and as \(y<0\), then \(|y|=-y\). So in this case \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) becomes: \(x-y>x-(-y)\) or \(x-y>x+y\) --> \(2y<0\) --> \(y<0\). Which is right, as we consider the range \(y<0<x\);

(II) For all real x and y, \(|x - y| \geq |x| - |y|\) \(|x - y| = |x| - |y|\) when (1) x and y have the same sign and x has greater (or equal) absolute value than y (2) y is 0 \(|x - y| > |x| - |y|\) in all other cases

Question: Is |x-y|>|x|-|y|?

We need to establish whether the "equal to" sign can hold or not.

(1) y < x Doesn't tell us whether they have the same sign or opposite. So we don't know whether the equal to sign will hold or greater than. Not sufficient.

(2) xy < 0 Tells us that one of x and y is positive and the other is negative (they do not have same sign). Also tells us that neither x nor y is 0. Hence, the "equal to" sign cannot hold. Sufficient to answer 'Yes'

Please tell the quick approach.... it took me loner than I should have taken....

Algebraic approach is given in my first post. Below is another approach:

\(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\)?

(1) \(y<x\)

Try two positive number \(x=3>y=1\) --> is \(|3-1|>|3|-|1|\)? --> is \(2>2\)? Answer NO.

Try ANY other case but both positive: \(x=-5>y=-7\) --> is \(|-5-(-7)|>|-5|-|-7|\)? --> is \(2>-2\)? Answer YES.

Two different answers. Not sufficient.

(2) \(xy<0\), means \(x\) and \(y\) have different signs.

Now we can spot here that when \(x\) and \(y\) have different signs \(x-y\) always "contribute" to each other so that its absolute value will increase: \(x=3\), \(y=-1\) --> \(|x-y|=|3+1|=|4|=4\) or \(x=-3\), \(y=1\) --> \(|x-y|=|-3-1|=|4|=4\).

But \(|x|-|y|\) is difference (thus not "contributing") of two positive values (as neither equals to zero). \(x=3\), \(y=-1\) --> \(|x|-|y|=|3|-|-1|=2\) or \(x=-3\), \(y=1\) --> \(|x|-|y|=|-3|-|1|=2\).

So \(xy<0\) means \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\) is always true.

So if we take the case x = -1, y = 1 Then |x – y| = |-2| = 2 and |x| - |y| = 1 – 1 = 0

Again, if x = 5 , y = -1 Then |x – y| = |6| = 6 and |x| - |y| = 5 – 1 = 4

So both 1 and 2 are insuff.

Combine them -> It is obvious that y < 0 and x > 0, so by adding a negative sign the magnitude increases and on the right side the magnitude will be less as the difference is between two positive numbers (i.e. the modulus values).

e.g. x = 2, y = -5

|x – y| = |7| and |x| - |y| = 2 – 5 = -3

So |x – y| > |x| - |y| Answer - C

But in both the examples, its being shown that case 2 is sufficient. Am i mistaken?

|x-y| represents the distance between x and y on the number line.

|x|-|y|, on the other hand, first takes the absolute value of both numbers - and thereby moving them both to the positive side of the number line - and THEN calculates the difference between x and y

Visually, it makes sense that if x and y are of different signs (for example, x=-5, y=5), then the difference between the two numbers on a number line is greater if measured before moving them both to the positive side of the number line.

At this point I logically deduced that it is impossible for |x-y| to be less than |x|-|y|. I also deduced at this point that if x and y have the same sign, it does not matter when the absolute value is taken because the difference between them will be the same either way.

After this thought process, the problem becomes much easier.

How it is B? Did they mention that X and Y are integers? No right, the answer should be E. If they provide details about X and Y as integers then it will be B otherwise it will be E.

can anyone help me about the scenario whether we consider fractions or not in this case?

Scenario:

x=1/2, y=1/3 ==> |1/2-1/3|=1/6 and |1/2|-|1/3|=1/6

It is B because if you use the data of statement 2, you can say, "Yes, |x-y| is greater than |x|-|y|"

(2) xy < 0 This means that one of x and y is positive and the other is negative. You cannot take x = 1/2 and y = 1/3. It is not about fractions/integers. It is about positive/negative numbers (most mod questions are about positive/negative numbers) When xy < 0, |x-y|>|x|-|y| always holds. Only when x and y both are positive or both are negative and |x|>|y|, then |x-y|=|x|-|y|
_________________

How it is B? Did they mention that X and Y are integers? No right, the answer should be E. If they provide details about X and Y as integers then it will be B otherwise it will be E.

can anyone help me about the scenario whether we consider fractions or not in this case?

Scenario:

x=1/2, y=1/3 ==> |1/2-1/3|=1/6 and |1/2|-|1/3|=1/6

From F.S 1, we have that x>y. Thus |x-y| = x-y. Thus, we have to answer whether x-y>|x|-|y|.

or x-|x|>y-|y|. Now for x>0, and y>0, we have is 0>0 and hence a NO. Again, for x>0 and y<0, we have a YES. Insufficient.

For F.S 2, we know that x and y are of opposite signs. Thus, x and y being on the opposite sides of the number line w.r.t the origin, the term |x-y| will always be more than the difference of the absolute distance of x and y from origin.Sufficient.

How it is B? Did they mention that X and Y are integers? No right, the answer should be E. If they provide details about X and Y as integers then it will be B otherwise it will be E.

can anyone help me about the scenario whether we consider fractions or not in this case?

Scenario:

x=1/2, y=1/3 ==> |1/2-1/3|=1/6 and |1/2|-|1/3|=1/6

Fractions and integers have no role to play here. Check Bunuel's post above.

Whenever xy < 0, i.e. x is negative but y is positive OR x is positive but y is negative, |x-y| is greater than |x|-|y|.

e.g. x = -1/2, y = 1/3 |x-y| = |-1/2-1/3| = 5/6 |x|-|y| = 1/2 - 1/3 = 1/6

So |x - y| > |x|-|y|

Do you see the logic here? If one of x and y is positive and the other is negative, in |x - y|, absolute values of x and y get added and the sum is positive. While in |x|-|y|, the absolute values are subtracted.
_________________

(1) is insuff. because if x and y equal to 10 and 2 respectively, then both sides of the inequality are the same weighted. But, if x, y are equal to 10 and -10 respectively, then left side is greater than the right side(from our perspective) of the inequality.

(2) states that either x or y is negative. We do not know which one is exactly negative. However, it is not important to find out this because in both cases the left side of the inequality is greater than the right side(from our perspective). Why? It is simple. On the left side the numbers are added while on the right side the same numbers are subtracted from each other. Therefore, this statement is sufficient.

So, the correct answer is B.

Last edited by aja1991 on 02 Jan 2014, 02:36, edited 2 times in total.

Squaring and simplifying, is xy < |x||y|? 1. x > y. put x = -2, y = -4 NO; put x = 4, y = -2 YES. NOT SUFFICIENT 2. xy <0; |x||y| always > 0, so xy always < |x||y| 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...

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...