Last visit was: 10 Jul 2025, 07:05 It is currently 10 Jul 2025, 07:05
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
Economist
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Last visit: 24 Dec 2018
Posts: 383
Own Kudos:
4,400
 [98]
Given Kudos: 18
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Posts: 383
Kudos: 4,400
 [98]
19
Kudos
Add Kudos
79
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
 [45]
27
Kudos
Add Kudos
18
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
740,056
 [6]
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
 [6]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Economist
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Last visit: 24 Dec 2018
Posts: 383
Own Kudos:
4,400
 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Posts: 383
Kudos: 4,400
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a good question, simple with a small trap
User avatar
lagomez
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Last visit: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 1,225
Own Kudos:
542
 [2]
Given Kudos: 31
Posts: 1,225
Kudos: 542
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
|y - x| = x - y

y - x = x - y
2x = 2y
x=y so answer is no

-y + x = x-y
0=0
answer is no

sufficient
User avatar
chix475ntu
Joined: 26 May 2005
Last visit: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 99
Kudos: 276
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
st 1) y=1, x=3/4 - false
y=-1, x=-3/4 - true
Not sufficient
st 2)
|y-x| =x-y--> x>y
Sufficient
coz |-x| = -(-x) = x -- basically a negative numbers should be negated again to get the result for absolute value
all the cases as cay that x>y but fails when x=y

combining we can answer the question

C

<didnt consider x=y option, so answered as B :ouch >
User avatar
gurpreetsingh
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Last visit: 15 Jun 2019
Posts: 2,273
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 235
Status:<strong>Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.</strong>
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Products:
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 2,273
Kudos: 3,855
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chix475ntu
st 1) y=1, x=3/4 - false
y=-1, x=-3/4 - true
Not sufficient
st 2)
|y-x| =x-y--> x>y
Sufficient
coz |-x| = -(-x) = x -- basically a negative numbers should be negated again to get the result for absolute value

B

B alone is not sufficient as we dont know whether x=y?

So A gives information that x is not = y.

So Final ans is C
This was nice question...even I would have done the same mistake in the exam..Its really important to think of all the possibilities on the G day.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
740,056
 [1]
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Given: \(xy\neq0\). Question: is \(x>y\) true?

(1) \(4x = 3y\) --> if \(x\) and \(y\) are both positive, then \(x<y\) BUT if they are both negative then \(x>y\). Not sufficient. But from this statement we can grasp an important property we'll use while evaluating statements together: as \(xy\neq0\) then from statement (1) \(x\neq{y}\).

(2) \(|y-x|=x-y\). Now as LHS is absolute value, which is never negative, RHS must also be \(\geq0\) --> so \(x-y\geq0\) --> then \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\), and we'll get \(-(y-x)=x-y\) --> \(0=0\), which is true. This means that equation \(|y-x|=x-y\) holds true when \(x-y\geq0\) or, which is the same, when \(x\geq{y}\). But this not enough as \(x=y\) is still possible. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) we got that \(x\neq{y}\) and from (2) \(x\geq{y}\), hence \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it helps.
avatar
Aidhen
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Last visit: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Given: \(xy\neq0\). Question: is \(x>y\) true?

(1) \(4x = 3y\) --> if \(x\) and \(y\) are both positive, then \(x<y\) BUT if they are both negative then \(x>y\). Not sufficient. But from this statement we can grasp an important property we'll use while evaluating statements together: as \(xy\neq0\) then from statement (1) \(x\neq{y}\).

(2) \(|y-x|=x-y\). Now as LHS is absolute value, which is never negative, RHS must also be \(\geq0\) --> so \(x-y\geq0\) --> then \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\), and we'll get \(-(y-x)=x-y\) --> \(0=0\), which is true. This means that equation \(|y-x|=x-y\) holds true when \(x-y\geq0\) or, which is the same, when \(x\geq{y}\). But this not enough as \(x=y\) is still possible. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) we got that \(x\neq{y}\) and from (2) \(x\geq{y}\), hence \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it helps.

Dear Bunuel:

I am a bit confused with this problem. I don't have a problem to understand the first statement, but I do have a problem trying to understand the second one..

I saw a user on this thread was solving the second statement as this:

2. |y - x| = x - y

y - x = x - y
2x = 2y
x=y

-y + x = x-y
0=0

Isn't his way of solving the correct way to solve this kind of problems? I have seen some other exercises and they always negate the LHS that has the absolute value on it regarding of the inequality symbol or equality. I would like to learn why we are not doing this on this problem.

If I am wrong, would you be so kind to revamp the way of solving statement 2, I already read the way you solved it, but it was not 100% clear for me.

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Aidhen
Bunuel
Given: \(xy\neq0\). Question: is \(x>y\) true?

(1) \(4x = 3y\) --> if \(x\) and \(y\) are both positive, then \(x<y\) BUT if they are both negative then \(x>y\). Not sufficient. But from this statement we can grasp an important property we'll use while evaluating statements together: as \(xy\neq0\) then from statement (1) \(x\neq{y}\).

(2) \(|y-x|=x-y\). Now as LHS is absolute value, which is never negative, RHS must also be \(\geq0\) --> so \(x-y\geq0\) --> then \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\), and we'll get \(-(y-x)=x-y\) --> \(0=0\), which is true. This means that equation \(|y-x|=x-y\) holds true when \(x-y\geq0\) or, which is the same, when \(x\geq{y}\). But this not enough as \(x=y\) is still possible. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) we got that \(x\neq{y}\) and from (2) \(x\geq{y}\), hence \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it helps.

Dear Bunuel:

I am a bit confused with this problem. I don't have a problem to understand the first statement, but I do have a problem trying to understand the second one..

I saw a user on this thread was solving the second statement as this:

2. |y - x| = x - y

y - x = x - y
2x = 2y
x=y

-y + x = x-y
0=0

Isn't his way of solving the correct way to solve this kind of problems? I have seen some other exercises and they always negate the LHS that has the absolute value on it regarding of the inequality symbol or equality. I would like to learn why we are not doing this on this problem.

If I am wrong, would you be so kind to revamp the way of solving statement 2, I already read the way you solved it, but it was not 100% clear for me.

Thanks in advance.

There can be many correct ways to solve a questions.

Try this one: (2) says that \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\). We know that \(|x|=-x\), when \(x\leq{0}\), thus \(y-x\leq{0}\).
avatar
dhanyamv88
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Last visit: 18 Jan 2017
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
27
 [2]
Given Kudos: 88
D: M
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Posts: 11
Kudos: 27
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

(1) 4x = 3y

(2) |y - x| = x - y

Consider (1)
4x=3y ; x=3/-3 and y =4/-4 satisfy this condition. so x can be > y or x can be <y.
insufficient

Consider (2)

|y - x| = x - y
x= 4 y =3 satisfy this , and x>y
x= 3 y=3 satisfy this but x =y
x= 3 and y = 4 doesnt satisfy
x=-3 and y =-4 satisfy this and x >y
hence insufficient

combining 1 and 2 the only option that satisfy 1 and 2 is x=-3 and y=-4 and hence x>y

Therefore C is the answer.
avatar
ramblersm
Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Last visit: 22 Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
GPA: 3.11
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Given: \(xy\neq0\). Question: is \(x>y\) true?

(1) \(4x = 3y\) --> if \(x\) and \(y\) are both positive, then \(x<y\) BUT if they are both negative then \(x>y\). Not sufficient. But from this statement we can grasp an important property we'll use while evaluating statements together: as \(xy\neq0\) then from statement (1) \(x\neq{y}\).

(2) \(|y-x|=x-y\). Now as LHS is absolute value, which is never negative, RHS must also be \(\geq0\) --> so \(x-y\geq0\) --> then \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\), and we'll get \(-(y-x)=x-y\) --> \(0=0\), which is true. This means that equation \(|y-x|=x-y\) holds true when \(x-y\geq0\) or, which is the same, when \(x\geq{y}\). But this not enough as \(x=y\) is still possible. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) we got that \(x\neq{y}\) and from (2) \(x\geq{y}\), hence \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it helps.

Hello Bunuel,

Thank you for your answer. Although , as per mod property, isn't it the case that |x| = x when x>=0 and -x when x<0 ? I would like to know why you are considering |x| = -x when x<=0, because this is where the answer is really hinged on.

Thanks!
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ramblersm
Bunuel
Given: \(xy\neq0\). Question: is \(x>y\) true?

(1) \(4x = 3y\) --> if \(x\) and \(y\) are both positive, then \(x<y\) BUT if they are both negative then \(x>y\). Not sufficient. But from this statement we can grasp an important property we'll use while evaluating statements together: as \(xy\neq0\) then from statement (1) \(x\neq{y}\).

(2) \(|y-x|=x-y\). Now as LHS is absolute value, which is never negative, RHS must also be \(\geq0\) --> so \(x-y\geq0\) --> then \(|y-x|=-(y-x)\), and we'll get \(-(y-x)=x-y\) --> \(0=0\), which is true. This means that equation \(|y-x|=x-y\) holds true when \(x-y\geq0\) or, which is the same, when \(x\geq{y}\). But this not enough as \(x=y\) is still possible. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) we got that \(x\neq{y}\) and from (2) \(x\geq{y}\), hence \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.

Hope it helps.

Hello Bunuel,

Thank you for your answer. Although , as per mod property, isn't it the case that |x| = x when x>=0 and -x when x<0 ? I would like to know why you are considering |x| = -x when x<=0, because this is where the answer is really hinged on.

Thanks!

|0| = 0 = -0, so you can include = sign in either of the cases: |x| = -x, when x<=0 and |x| = x, when x >= 0.
User avatar
US09
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Last visit: 06 Apr 2021
Posts: 248
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 338
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Products:
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Posts: 248
Kudos: 284
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Economist
If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

(1) 4x = 3y

(2) |y - x| = x - y

This is a good one. +1 Economist for it.

If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

Question asks whether \(x>y\)?

(1) 4x = 3y --> \(x=\frac{3}{4}y\), well this one is relatively easy. This statement only tells that x and y have the same sign. When they are both positive then \(x>y\), BUT when they are both negative \(y>x\). Not sufficient.

(2) \(|y - x| = x - y\) --> \(|y - x| = -(y-x)\). This means that \(y - x\leq{0}\) --> \(x\geq{y}\). Thus, this statement says that x can be more than or equal to y. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) (\(x=\frac{3}{4}y\)) it follows that \(x\) is not equal to \(y\) (bearing in mind that xy ≠ 0), hence from (2): \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.


For (1), isn't it the opposite? when both +ve x<y, when both -ve x>y.
User avatar
rahul16singh28
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 09 Jun 2020
Posts: 431
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 752
Location: Malaysia
GPA: 3.95
WE:Consulting (Energy)
Posts: 431
Kudos: 493
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
urvashis09
Bunuel
Economist
If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

(1) 4x = 3y

(2) |y - x| = x - y

This is a good one. +1 Economist for it.

If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

Question asks whether \(x>y\)?

(1) 4x = 3y --> \(x=\frac{3}{4}y\), well this one is relatively easy. This statement only tells that x and y have the same sign. When they are both positive then \(x>y\), BUT when they are both negative \(y>x\). Not sufficient.

(2) \(|y - x| = x - y\) --> \(|y - x| = -(y-x)\). This means that \(y - x\leq{0}\) --> \(x\geq{y}\). Thus, this statement says that x can be more than or equal to y. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) From (1) (\(x=\frac{3}{4}y\)) it follows that \(x\) is not equal to \(y\) (bearing in mind that xy ≠ 0), hence from (2): \(x>y\). Sufficient.

Answer: C.


For (1), isn't it the opposite? when both +ve x<y, when both -ve x>y.


Yes but that doesn't change the answer anyway.
avatar
Kezia9
Joined: 04 Oct 2017
Last visit: 23 Mar 2019
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 467
Posts: 55
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kudos for the explanation. Am having trouble with absolute value and inequalities. How can I improve????
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 10 July 2025
Posts: 102,613
Own Kudos:
740,056
 [1]
Given Kudos: 98,141
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,613
Kudos: 740,056
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
UmangMe
Joined: 14 Dec 2019
Last visit: 08 Mar 2024
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 25
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Economist
If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

(1) 4x = 3y

(2) |y - x| = x - y
:facepalm_man: silly Mistake and end up with :hurt:
User avatar
exc4libur
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1,702
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 607
Location: United States
Posts: 1,702
Kudos: 1,430
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Economist
If xy ≠ 0, is x > y?

(1) 4x = 3y

(2) |y - x| = x - y


(1) 4x = 3y: insufic
x=3/4*y
x,y>0: then x<y…y=1, x=3/4(1)=3/4<1
x,y<0: then x>y…y=-2, x=3/4(-2)=-1.5>-2

(2) |y - x| = x - y: insufic
|y-x|≥0…x-y≥0…x≥y; x=y or x>y

(1/2) sufic
since x=3/4y then x≠y, thus x>y

Ans (C)
User avatar
bumpbot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 37,375
Own Kudos:
Posts: 37,375
Kudos: 1,010
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.
Moderator:
Math Expert
102613 posts