Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 23:38 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 23:38
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Stiv
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Last visit: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 124
Own Kudos:
2,417
 [292]
Given Kudos: 121
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Posts: 124
Kudos: 2,417
 [292]
25
Kudos
Add Kudos
265
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,408
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,408
Kudos: 778,411
 [228]
125
Kudos
Add Kudos
103
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,001
 [39]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,001
 [39]
27
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
shankyGMAT
Joined: 09 Jan 2014
Last visit: 30 Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
44
 [35]
Given Kudos: 26
GMAT Date: 05-28-2015
GPA: 3.48
Posts: 13
Kudos: 44
 [35]
28
Kudos
Add Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Stiv
If mv < pv < 0, is v > 0?

(1) m < p
(2) m < 0


Statement 1 : Since m<p
(m-p)<0
We also know that mv<pv ie (m-p)v<0
Since (m-p)<0 therefore v>0
SUFFICIENT

Statement 2: Given m<0
Since mv<0
therefore v > 0
SUFFICIENT

Hence (D)
General Discussion
User avatar
flower07
Joined: 16 Oct 2013
Last visit: 02 Sep 2020
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 15
Status:Aiming for 750+
GMAT Date: 05-05-2014
Posts: 21
Kudos: 210
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am sorry but I somehow still dont understand. I chose B, which I know is incorrect.

Well, let me tell you why I do not understand the Stmt. 1 is sufficient.

Given: mv<pv<0. It is given that MV and PV ARE -ve. This means, When V is -ve, M,P are +ve and vice versa.

I tabulated as below:

m v p mv pv
+ - + - -
- + - - -

Now, statement 1 says m < p. It does not say if they are negative or positive.

So, it is possible that:

3 < 5 (m=3 and p=5) and this means V is -ve

OR

-3 < -1 (m=-3 and p=-1) and this means V is +ve

Different answers so stmt 1 should be insufficient. What I am missing?

Thank you!
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,408
Own Kudos:
778,411
 [6]
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,408
Kudos: 778,411
 [6]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
flower07
I am sorry but I somehow still dont understand. I chose B, which I know is incorrect.

Well, let me tell you why I do not understand the Stmt. 1 is sufficient.

Given: mv<pv<0. It is given that MV and PV ARE -ve. This means, When V is -ve, M,P are +ve and vice versa.

I tabulated as below:

m v p mv pv
+ - + - -
- + - - -

Now, statement 1 says m < p. It does not say if they are negative or positive.

So, it is possible that:

3 < 5 (m=3 and p=5) and this means V is -ve


OR

-3 < -1 (m=-3 and p=-1) and this means V is +ve

Different answers so stmt 1 should be insufficient. What I am missing?

Thank you!

Ask yourself: if m=3 and p=5 and v is negative, say -1, does mv < pv< 0 hold true?
User avatar
flower07
Joined: 16 Oct 2013
Last visit: 02 Sep 2020
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
210
 [1]
Given Kudos: 15
Status:Aiming for 750+
GMAT Date: 05-05-2014
Posts: 21
Kudos: 210
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Ask yourself: if m=3 and p=5 and v is negative, say -1, does mv < pv< 0 hold true?

Aha!! I get it now. So, when m=3, p=5 and v is -ve, mv (-3) becomes > pv (-5) making the given condition void.

So, Stmt 1 is sufficient. Great learning for the day. (This makes me wanna repeat to myself - When you pick numbers, quickly plug in to see if they are correct)

I also figured this just now:

mv < pv < 0
(mv-pv) <0
v(m-p)<0

If v is +ve, m<p (This is what the Statement 1 is saying too)
If v is -ve, m>p

So, the answer is D.

Thank you!!
User avatar
HKD1710
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Last visit: 26 Feb 2021
Posts: 961
Own Kudos:
4,517
 [1]
Given Kudos: 182
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
Posts: 961
Kudos: 4,517
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

Given: \(mv<pv<0\) --> two cases:

If \(v>0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m<p<0\);
If \(v<0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m>p>0\) (flip the sign when dividing by negative value).

(1) m < p --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.
(2) m < 0 --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hope it's clear.


I understood Bunuel's explanation for statement-1 but following values makes statement-1 insufficient. Please help me understand this:

(1) m<p

lets take v=1, m=-3, p=-2 it gives mv=-3, pv=-2 and hence does not violate mv<pv<0 as -3<-2<0, so v is +ve here
lets take v=-1, m=3, p=2 it gives mv=-3, pv=-2 and hence does not violate mv<pv<0 as -3<-2<0 but v is -ve here

Thanks
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,408
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,408
Kudos: 778,411
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HKD1710
Bunuel
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

Given: \(mv<pv<0\) --> two cases:

If \(v>0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m<p<0\);
If \(v<0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m>p>0\) (flip the sign when dividing by negative value).

(1) m < p --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.
(2) m < 0 --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hope it's clear.


I understood Bunuel's explanation for statement-1 but following values makes statement-1 insufficient. Please help me understand this:

(1) m<p

lets take v=1, m=-3, p=-2 it gives mv=-3, pv=-2 and hence does not violate mv<pv<0 as -3<-2<0, so v is +ve here
lets take v=-1, m=3, p=2 it gives mv=-3, pv=-2 and hence does not violate mv<pv<0 as -3<-2<0 but v is -ve here

Thanks

m = 3 and p = 2 violate the first statement, which says that m < p.
User avatar
BrainLab
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Last visit: 26 Jan 2025
Posts: 345
Own Kudos:
3,131
 [1]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
Posts: 345
Kudos: 3,131
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Stiv
If mv < pv < 0, is v > 0?

(1) m < p
(2) m < 0

(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
User avatar
anairamitch1804
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Last visit: 20 Apr 2019
Posts: 506
Own Kudos:
3,564
 [3]
Given Kudos: 877
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE:Education (Education)
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
Posts: 506
Kudos: 3,564
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I believe it is D.

Case 1) m < p
mv < pv < 0
mv - pv < pv - pv < -pv . Subtract pv
v(m-p) < 0 < -pv

Since m < p OR (m - p) < 0 Therefore, v must be positive. SUFF

Case 2) m < 0
Since mv < 0 (given), v must be positive. SUFF

Hence D.
User avatar
dabaobao
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Last visit: 20 Jun 2022
Posts: 570
Own Kudos:
1,639
 [2]
Given Kudos: 143
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 3: 690 Q48 V37
GMAT 4: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
GMAT 4: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
Posts: 570
Kudos: 1,639
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
enigma123
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

(1) m < p
(2) m < 0


Main Topic


Inequalities

Rule:
Multiplying/dividing inequalities by
+ variable: Don't flip sign
- variable: Flip sign

Divide by v
If v = +, then m < p < 0
If v = -, then m > p > 0

1) Implies v = +. Sufficient.
2) Implies v = +. Sufficient.

ANSWER: D
User avatar
MathRevolution
User avatar
Math Revolution GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Aug 2015
Last visit: 27 Sep 2022
Posts: 10,070
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
GPA: 3.82
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Posts: 10,070
Kudos: 19,393
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
enigma123
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

(1) m < p
(2) m < 0

Forget conventional ways of solving math questions. For DS problems, the VA (Variable Approach) method is the quickest and easiest way to find the answer without actually solving the problem. Remember that equal numbers of variables and independent equations ensure a solution.
Visit https://www.mathrevolution.com/gmat/lesson for details.

The first step of the VA (Variable Approach) method is to modify the original condition and the question. Then we recheck the question. We should simplify conditions if necessary.

\(mv < pv\)
\(⇔ mv - pv < 0\)
\(⇔ v(m-p) < 0\)

Since the original condition is equivalent to \(v(m-p) < 0\), the question is equivalent to \(m - p < 0\) or \(m < p\).
This is same as condition 1).
Thus condition 1) is sufficient.

Condition 2)
When we consider both condition 2), \(m < 0\) and the original condition, \(mv < 0\), we have \(v > 0\).
Thus condition 2) is also sufficient.

Therefore, D is the answer.
User avatar
tagheueraquaracer
Joined: 09 Jan 2019
Last visit: 27 Nov 2020
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 43
Posts: 33
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

Given: \(mv<pv<0\) --> two cases:

If \(v>0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m<p<0\);
If \(v<0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m>p>0\) (flip the sign when dividing by negative value).

(1) m < p --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.
(2) m < 0 --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hope it's clear.

Damn it's solvable in less than 30 seconds! Never thought it was that easy! Thanks Bunuel!!!
User avatar
Basshead
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 925
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Posts: 925
Kudos: 302
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If \(mv < pv < 0,\) is \(v > 0\)?

\(mv - pv < 0\)
\(v(m-p) < 0\)
\((m - p)\) and v must have opposite signs. For v to be positive, \((m - p)\) must be negative. We can rephrase the question as: Is \(m < p\)?

(1) \(m < p\)

Directly answers our question. SUFFICIENT.

(2) \(m < 0\)

Lets look back at the original question prompt: \(mv < pv < 0\)

If m is negative, v MUST be negative for the prompt to be true. Otherwise, mv would be greater than 0. SUFFICIENT.

Answer is D.
User avatar
hassan233
Joined: 28 Dec 2020
Last visit: 16 Feb 2022
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 25
Location: United States
Posts: 52
Kudos: 55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Did not really like the solutions I read, so here is mine.
We know mv < pv < 0, so this means we know mv < 0 (aka negative) AND pv < 0 (aka negative).

(1) m < p

Let us say m = -5 and p = -1
Then -5v < -1v < 0 is only true if v is positive
Say v = 1, then -5 < -1 < 0 TRUE
Say v = -1, then 5 < 1 < 0 FALSE

Well, what if m = 1 and p = 5, it is still true m < p
Then 1v < 5v < 0
If v is negative, say v = -1 then
-1 < -5 < 0 FALSE so that is not possible
If v is positive, save v = 1 then
1 < 5 < 0 also FALSE

Let us say m = -1 and p = 3, again m < p
Then -1v < 3v < 0
if v is negative, say v = -1 then
1< -3 < 0 FALSE, not possible
if v is positive, say v = 1 then
-1 < 3 < 0 FALSE not positive

So I just proved to you that if m < p, v MUST be positive

(2) m < 0

Remember when I said mv < 0 (aka negative)?

if mv MUST be negative, and m is negative, then that means v MUST be positive since (-)(+) is (-)

So both are sufficient. This is more theory-based than using formulas. It is helpful to know both ways!!
User avatar
RastogiSarthak99
Joined: 20 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Aug 2024
Posts: 141
Own Kudos:
23
 [1]
Given Kudos: 282
Location: India
Posts: 141
Kudos: 23
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
My 2 cents on this:

It seems better to not use numbers, since algebraic equations might suffice. I solved it with this logic:

Before heading to Statements, we are given mv< pv < 0. I'm quickly able to deduce that mv < 0 and pv < 0. Let's keep this in mind.

S1: m<p --> written now as m-p< 0

from main statement, we know mv<pv<0 --> mv - pv < 0 further written as v(m-p) < 0

Now lets look at v (m-p) < 0

either v < 0 or m-p < 0; from S1 we can confirm m-p< 0 and so v > 0 has to be true. Sufficient.

S2: m<0. Ding ding ding! Our initial deduction was mv<0 and if m< 0 v has to be positive. Sufficient.

Hence, D.
User avatar
pnandi3
Joined: 08 Apr 2020
Last visit: 26 Aug 2025
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 63
Location: United States (IL)
Posts: 103
Kudos: 63
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
If mv < pv< 0, is v > 0?

Given: \(mv<pv<0\) --> two cases:

If \(v>0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m<p<0\);
If \(v<0\) then when dividing by \(v\) we would have: \(m>p>0\) (flip the sign when dividing by negative value).

(1) m < p --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.
(2) m < 0 --> we have the first case, so \(v>0\). Sufficient.

Answer: D.

Hope it's clear.

This is such an elegant and simple solution. Your brain really is something else...
User avatar
bumpbot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 38,591
Own Kudos:
Posts: 38,591
Kudos: 1,079
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

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.
Moderators:
Math Expert
105406 posts
496 posts