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:
You can solve such questions easily by re-stating '< 0' as 'negative' and '> 0' as 'positive'.
mv < pv < 0 implies both 'pv' and 'mv' are negative and mv is more negative i.e. has greater absolute value as compared to pv. Since v will be equal in both, m will have a greater absolute value as compared to p.
When will mv and pv both be negative? In 2 cases: Case 1: When v is positive and m and p are both negative. Case 2: When v is negative and m and p are both positive.
So how will we know whether v is positive? If we know that at least one of m and p is negative, then v must be positive. If at least one of m and p is positive, then v must be negative.
Now that we understand the question and the implications of the given data, we go on to the statements.
Stmnt 1: m < p m has greater absolute value as compared to p but it is still smaller than p. This means m must be negative. If m is negative, p must be negative too which implies that v must be positive. Sufficient.
Stmnt 2: m < 0 Very straight forward. m and p both must be negative and v must be positive. Sufficient.
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.
(1) means both m and p are negative, so in order \(mv\) and \(pv\) to be < 0, \(v\) must be greater than zero. (If it's -ve mv will > 0) (2) same is in (1) m<0 means \(m\) is -ve, and in order mv to be negative v must be greater than zero. Answer D
When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.
Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !
Statement 1) m < p I tried plugging numbers : m=-3, p=-2 to satisfy (a) consider different values of v : v is positive : v=5 , (-3)(5) < (-2)(5) < 0 = -15 < -10 < 0 ----- satisfy (a) v is negative : v=-5 , (-3)(-5) < (-2)(-5) < 0 = 15 < 10 < 0 ----- does not satisfy (a) Hence, v must be positive
Statement 2) m < 0 from (a) , we can see that mv < 0 hence to satisfy mv < 0 when m < 0 , we need a positive value of v [(-ve)*(+ve)=(-ve)] Therefore v must be positive
Could someone (@Bunuel) please check this alternative approach?
Rephrase stem to \(mv-pv<0\) --> \(v(m-p)<0\)
Stm 1: \(m<p\) --> \(m-p<0\), so \(v\) has to be positive for the above inequality to hold true. Sufficient.
Stm 2: Now this is where i screwed it up since i focused on my rephrased inequality and completely ignored the given one. Is there a way to draw the right conclusion from this inequality \(v(m-p)<0\) in combination with the constraint \(m<0\) of stm 2?
Otherwise i have to adjust my approach for those kind of questions since i tought rephrasing the question stem would in most cases help to evaluate both statements. Probably in this case it made things more complicated...