Last visit was: 23 Jan 2025, 09:42 It is currently 23 Jan 2025, 09:42
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
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 627
Own Kudos:
565
 [27]
Given Kudos: 4,092
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
26
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 22 Jan 2025
Posts: 1,342
Own Kudos:
3,464
 [20]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert reply
Posts: 1,342
Kudos: 3,464
 [20]
11
Kudos
Add Kudos
9
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 22 Jan 2025
Posts: 11,379
Own Kudos:
38,733
 [4]
Given Kudos: 333
Status:Math and DI Expert
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 11,379
Kudos: 38,733
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Archit3110
User avatar
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 23 Jan 2025
Posts: 8,126
Own Kudos:
4,557
 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73
Posts: 8,126
Kudos: 4,557
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ShankSouljaBoi
Is p > q

1. 2p/3 < 3q/8

2. 7p/11 < 4q/5

target determine whether p>q
#1
2p/3 < 3q/8
can be written as
16p-9q/24<0
possible at p,q; (1,2) ; ( -1,-1)
insufficient
#2
7p/11 < 4q/5
can be written as
35p-44q/55<0
possible at p,q; ( 1,1) ; ( -1,0) ; (1,2)
insufficient
from 1&2
we can say that q>p then both #1 & #2 would be valid
OPTION C
User avatar
gmatophobia
User avatar
Quant Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Last visit: 22 Jan 2025
Posts: 3,117
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,860
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
Products:
Posts: 3,117
Kudos: 7,448
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY
Mo2men
ShankSouljaBoi
Is p > q ?

1. 2p/3 < 3q/8

2. 7p/11 < 4q/5

Statement 1: \(\frac{2}{3}p < \frac{3}{8}q\)
Multiplying by the LCM of the two denominators -- 24 -- we get:
16p < 9q
\(p < \frac{9}{16}q\)

Case 1: q=1, implying that p < 9/16
If p=0, then p<q, so the answer to the question stem is NO.
Case 2: q=-16, implying that p < -9
If p=-10, then p>q, so the answer to the question stem is YES.
INSUFFICIENT.

Statement 2: \(\frac{7}{11}p < \frac{4}{5}q\)
Multiplying by the LCM of the two denominators -- 55 -- we get:
35p < 44q
\(p < \frac{44}{35}q\)

Case 1: q=1, implying that p < 44/35
If p=0, then p<q, so the answer to the question stem is NO.
Case 2: q=35, implying that p < 44
If p=40, then p>q, so the answer to the question stem is YES.
INSUFFICIENT.

Statements combined:
16p < 9q --> difference between the coefficients = 16-9 = 7
35p < 44q --> difference between the coefficients = 44-35 = 9

To combine the two inequalities so that p and q are ISOLATED, the difference between the coefficients must be THE SAME in each inequality.
The LCM of the two differences in blue is 63.
To yield a difference of 63 in each inequality, multiply the first by 9 and the second by 7:
9*16p < 9*9q --> 144p < 81q --> difference between the coefficients = 144-81 = 63
7*35p < 7*44q --> 245p < 308q --> difference between the coefficients = 308-245 = 63

Adding together the resulting inequalities in green, we get:
144p + 245p < 81q + 308q
389p < 389q
p < q
Thus, the answer to the question stem is NO.
SUFFICIENT.


Hello GMATGuruNY

When you combined the inequalities why didn't you just add the inequalities the way they are -

From Statement 1 we know

16p < 9q

From Statement 2 we know

35p < 44q

Can we not add the above two expressions to get -

51p < 53q

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 22 Jan 2025
Posts: 1,342
Own Kudos:
3,464
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert reply
Posts: 1,342
Kudos: 3,464
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AbhiroopGhosh
When you combined the inequalities why didn't you just add the inequalities the way they are -

From Statement 1 we know

16p < 9q

From Statement 2 we know

35p < 44q

Can we not add the above two expressions to get -

51p < 53q

In S1, the coefficient for p is GREATER than that for q.
As a result, we cannot determine whether p > q.
In S2, the coefficient for p is LESS than that for q.
As a result, we cannot determine whether p > q.

Is p > q?

The answer will be a definite NO if we can combine the two inequalities so that p and q have the SAME coefficient.
Simply adding the two inequalities does not accomplish this goal.
The approach in my earlier post yields the same coefficient for p and q, allowing us to prove that p < q and answer the question stem with a definite NO.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 23 Jan 2025
Posts: 98,902
Own Kudos:
696,065
 [1]
Given Kudos: 91,888
Products:
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 98,902
Kudos: 696,065
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is \(p > q\) ?

(1) \(\frac{2p}{3} < \frac{3q}{8}\)

Cross-multiply to get 16p < 9q. Now, inequalities of a form ax < by, if no constraints are given on x and y, are NEVER sufficient to answer whether x > y. Not sufficient.

(2) \(\frac{7p}{11} < \frac{4q}{5}\)

Cross-multiply to get 35p < 44q. As discussed above, this cannot be sufficient to determine whether x > y. Not sufficient.

(1)+(2) We are given two inequalities:

    16p < 9q
    and
    35p <44q

Multiplying the first inequality by 35 and the second inequality by 16, to equate the coefficients of p in both, we get (don't actually do the math):

    35*16p < 35*9q
    16*35p < 16*44q

Subtract the first one from the second:

    0 < q(16*44 - 35*9)
    0 < q(positive)
    q > 0

Multiply the first inequality by 44 and the second inequality by 9, to equate the coefficients of q in both, we get (don't actually do the math):

    44*16p < 44*9q
    9*35p < 9*44q

Subtract the second one from the first:

    p (44*16 - 9*35) < 0
    p(positive) < 0
    p < 0

Therefore, q, which is positive, is greater than p, which is negative, giving a NO answer to the question whether p > q. Sufficient.

Answer: C.
Moderator:
Math Expert
98901 posts