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 350,000 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:

Answer is C because combined we come conclude that neither 0,-1 and 1 can be X and therefore [x]>1

My question: What is the most effiecient way of answering this question? It it best to just plug in numbers and by doing so, conclude that between S1 and S2 X is neither 0, 1, or -1?

My route was:

1) Simplifying S1 to.... 2X>1 so X>1/2 OR X<-1 2) Simplifying S2 to....X>1 OR 2X<-1 so X>-1/2

Is that incorrect? And if so, how would you combine S1 and S2 and exclude numbers? Thank you.

1: gives x>1/2 and x<-1

so we get both YES and NO

2: gives x> 1 and X<-1/2 so both YES and NO

so A B D are knocked off

together we get that the values are between 1/2 and -1/2, hence the ANSWER is NO..hence C _________________

Regards, Harsha

Note: Give me kudos if my approach is right , else help me understand where i am missing.. I want to bell the GMAT Cat

I have read your post on this topic in detail. But the reason why the inequality sign was flipped (from the original question) for the first part of the expression (1-2x)>0 and not for the second part of the expression (1 + x)<0 is not clear.

I have read your post on this topic in detail. But the reason why the inequality sign was flipped (from the original question) for the first part of the expression (1-2x)>0 and not for the second part of the expression (1 + x)<0 is not clear.

This post might help to get the ranges for (1) and (2) - "How to solve quadratic inequalities - Graphic approach": x2-4x-94661.html#p731476

If x is an integer, is |x| > 1?

First of all: is |x| > 1 means is x<-1 (-2, -3, -4, ...) or x>1 (2, 3, 4, ...), so for YES answer x can be any integer but -1, 0, and 1.

(1) (1 - 2x)(1 + x) < 0 --> rewrite as (2x-1)(x+1)>0 (so that the coefficient of x^2 to be positive after expanding): roots are x=-1 and x=\frac{1}{2} --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-1 and x>\frac{1}{2}. x could still equal to 1, so not sufficient.

(2) (1 - x)(1 + 2x) < 0 --> rewrite as (x-1)(2x+1)>0: roots are x=-\frac{1}{2} and x=1 --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-\frac{1}{2} and x>1. x could still equal to -1, so not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Intersection of the ranges from (1) and (2) is x<-1 and x>1. Sufficient.

Neither condition 1 nor condition 2 suffice. But i guess drawing the possible outcomes of condition 1 and 2 on no. line will get the solution. Answer is C

This post might help to get the ranges for (1) and (2) - "How to solve quadratic inequalities - Graphic approach": x2-4x-94661.html#p731476

If x is an integer, is |x| > 1?

First of all: is |x| > 1 means is x<-1 (-2, -3, -4, ...) or x>1 (2, 3, 4, ...), so for YES answer x can be any integer but -1, 0, and 1.

(1) (1 - 2x)(1 + x) < 0 --> rewrite as (2x-1)(x+1)>0 (so that the coefficient of x^2 to be positive after expanding): roots are x=-1 and x=\frac{1}{2} --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-1 and x>\frac{1}{2}. x could still equal to 1, so not sufficient.

(2) (1 - x)(1 + 2x) < 0 --> rewrite as (x-1)(2x+1)>0: roots are x=-\frac{1}{2} and x=1 --> ">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-\frac{1}{2} and x>1.x could still equal to -1, so not sufficient.

(1)+(2) Intersection of the ranges from (1) and (2) is x<-1 and x>1. Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hi Bunuel,

I understood the question and got the answer right by finding the intersection for inequalities. The approach I normally use for such questions is as follows:

(1 - 2x)(1 + x) < 0

for above statement to be true the 2 expressions should have opposite signs, giving us (x > 1/2 and x > -1) OR (x < 1/2 and x < -1) Now, finding intersection gives us x > 1/2 OR x < -1. As a result, x < -1 is fine but x > 1/2 includes 1 as an option - making the statement insufficient.

Now my question is, how did you use the logic below to skip some of the steps above and directly go to the conclusion: x<-1 and x> 1/2. . What's the rule if instead of greater than (>) sign it was less than (<).

If I can understand the logic, I believe it will help save some valuable time.

">" sign means that the given inequality holds true for: x<-1 and x> 1/2.