‎[x] denotes to be the least integer no less than x. Is [2d]

Bumping for review and further discussion*. Get a kudos point for an alternative solution!

*New project from GMAT Club!!! Check HERE

I did not jump into the equations, but tried to solve logically. Please let me know if wrong.

We need to find out if [2d] = 0?

Again its a YES or NO, question, getting Either in the statements will help us to the solutions.

(1) [d] = 0

Now according to the question [x] = integer no less than x

Hence, considering two extremes for evaluating this particular case, Lets take
[0.12] = 0 as well as [0.99] = 0 (both are valid for [d] =0)

therefore, [2d], i.e. taking the same values as above
[0.24] = 0, but [1.98] = 1
so we cant say most definitely that [2d] =0

Not Sufficient.

(2) [3d] = 0

again considering etremes here,

lets take
Minimum value => 3d = 0.12 (you can take less then this as well, i am just taking this for easy divisibility purpose, as anything less then 0.12 will also result in 0 we already know that)
and
Maximum value => 3d = 0.99
[3d] = 0 holds for both the values.

now, [2d]
minimum= [0.8] =0
maximum= [0.22] =0

hence, no matter what range we take for 3d, 2d will always be less then that.
Thus, if [3d]= 0, holds true, then [2d] =0 should hold true as well.

Hence, B

Hi Bunuel,

Please let me know if the above approach is correct?

No, that's not correct. Function [] rounds UP a number to the nearest integer, thus [0.12] = 1, not 0 and [0.99] = 1, not 1.

Meaning that even -0.99 will round UP to 0 and not -1??

Yes. The function rounds UP a number to the nearest integer. The nearest integer greater than -0.99 is 0, thus [-0.99] = 0.

Check other Rounding Functions Questions in our Special Questions Directory.

Hope it helps.

Given [x] LI no less than x i.e [x]>=x
Find Is [2d]=0

Now [2d]=0 possible if 2d satisfies the inequality/range -1<2d<=0 ---equ(a)

Statement 1 [d]=0
=> Since [d]=0 so d lies in -1<d<=0
=> Multiplying the above inequality by 2 we have -2<2d<=0. So this range makes 2 cases
=> Case 1 When -2<2d<=-1 then [2d]=-1
=> Case 2 When -1<2d<=0 then [2d]=0
=> Since no unique sol. So NOT sufficient

Statement 2 [3d]=0
Since [3d]=0 so 3d lies in -1<3d<=0
=> Multiplying the above inequality by 2/3 we have -2/3<2d<=0.
=> So the above range satisfy equ (a)
=> Therefore [2d]=0
=> Since unique sol. So SUFFICIENT

Therefore "B"

Thanks

* Sorry but i still think, least number less than x means 0 for 0.12, and not 1

Posted from my mobile device

You are wrong. We are given that ‎[x] denotes to be the least integer no less than x.

What is [0.12] ? What is the least integer no less than x? 0 is less than 0.12. 1 is the least integer no less than 0.12.

[b] equates the least integer greater than or equal to b, which in everyday language means that [b] rounds UP to the next integer, if it is not an integer. For example, [2.5] = 3.

So the question is, is -1< \(2b\leq{0}\)

1) -1 < \(b\leq{0}\)

Not sufficient, because 2b could move to be less than -1, with 2 increasing the magnitude of the term.

2) -1 < \(3b\leq{0}\)

If 3b is between -1 and 0, then B itself has to be between -1 and 0. Dividing out the 3 would only move it closer to 0

Sufficient

B