Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 16 Jul 2019, 11:36

### 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

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

# Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 9
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V28
Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 05 Jul 2019, 09:08
5
8
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

76% (01:08) correct 24% (01:22) wrong based on 549 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
(2) r < | s |

Well, 1st one is clear but I have some difficulties with second statement. I guessed it's not sufficient but need clarification. Thank you!

_________________
Wanna crack GMAT!

Originally posted by DesecratoR on 29 Jan 2012, 18:54.
Last edited by MikeScarn on 05 Jul 2019, 09:08, edited 1 time in total.
Hid posters comment than contains potential spoiler.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56244
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2012, 19:02
5
6
DesecratoR wrote:
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
(2) r < | s |

Well, 1st one is clear but I have some difficulties with second statement. I guessed it's not sufficient but need clarification. Thank you!

Welcome to GMAT Club. Below is a solution for this problem.

Is $$r>s$$?

(1) $$-r+s<0$$ --> rearrange (or add $$r$$ to both parts): $$s<r$$, directly answers the question. Sufficient.

(2) $$r<|s|$$ --> either $$r<s$$ or $$r<-s$$ (for example $$r=1$$ and $$s=2$$ OR $$r=1$$ and $$s=-2$$). Not sufficient.

Basically this statement tells that absolute value of s is more than r, but s itself may be more, as well as less than r.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 9
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V28
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2012, 19:07
Clear, thanks! See you around!
_________________
Wanna crack GMAT!
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 136
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
WE: Operations (Insurance)
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2012, 22:38
Thanks but I am struggling with statement II

The statement tells us that
a) r<-s or :
s -s r r<-s? r>s?
5 -5 6 No
-5 5 -6 Yes No

b) r<s : r cannot be greater than S

both the substatements say thar r is not greater than s therefor should be sufficient
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56244
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2012, 23:41
devinawilliam83 wrote:
Thanks but I am struggling with statement II

The statement tells us that
a) r<-s or :
s -s r r<-s? r>s?
5 -5 6 No
-5 5 -6 Yes No

b) r<s : r cannot be greater than S

both the substatements say thar r is not greater than s therefor should be sufficient

(2) $$r<|s|$$ --> either $$r<s$$ OR $$r<-s$$. Now, try some number to see that this statement is not sufficient: if $$r=1$$ and $$s=2$$ then $$r<s$$ BUT if $$r=1$$ and $$s=-2$$ then $$r>s$$.

Again: this statement tells that absolute value of $$s$$ is more than $$r$$, but $$s$$ itself may be more, as well as less than $$r$$.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 146
Location: Germany
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: IE '15 (M)
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2012, 04:11
A

(I) rearrange to s<r --> sufficient
(II) r < | s | --> r can be smaller s (5<6) or greater s (5>-6), absolute value hide the positive or negative sign --> not sufficient
Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 143
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2012, 21:44
Lolaergasheva wrote:
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
(2) r < | s |

Is r>s?

(1) -r+s<0
so s<r
so for question answer will be "yes"
So (1) is sufficient

(2) r<|s|
If s is positive sufficient
If s is negative not sufficient.
So (2) is also not sufficient

A
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 415
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 02:40
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
Manipulate -r + s > 0 ==> s > r ==> NO! ==> SUFFICIENT!

(2) r < | s |
Let r = 5, s = -6 ==> r > s ? YES!
Let r = 5, s = 6 ==> r > s ? NO!
INSUFFICIENT!

_________________
Impossible is nothing to God.
Intern
Joined: 07 May 2011
Posts: 24
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 20:36
Another way to look at the second statement is this. this will save u a lot of time. won't even have to plug in for this.

Remember that |x| >y (or any such relation, no matter >,< or =) can be written as
-y>x>y.
(that is, just remember to keep the relation the same and just put negative on the left hand side and positive on the right hand side.)

so... statement 2 says r<|S|
meaning |s|>r ==> -r>s>r

so on the left hand side, S lies further left of -r, such that if r is 2 and thus -r is -2, s is even less and so s is -3 thus s is less than r, and so the main queston r>s is answered yes. but on the right hand side, s>r so the main question is answered no. hence stmt 2 is not sufficient.

DesecratoR wrote:
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
(2) r < | s |

Well, 1st one is clear but I have some difficulties with second statement. I guessed it's not sufficient but need clarification. Thank you!
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 348
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 11:12
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0 = I re arranged the statement, so r < s so sufficient
(2) r < | s | = here there were two cases given the modulus, so insufficient: case 1) r < s 2) -r > s

But I combined 1) + 2) where the common answer was r < s. But A is OA.
Could anyone explain the flaw in my reasoning?
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2017
Posts: 20
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 11:24
3
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0 = I re arranged the statement, so r < s so sufficient
(2) r < | s | = here there were two cases given the modulus, so insufficient: case 1) r < s 2) -r > s

But I combined 1) + 2) where the common answer was r < s. But A is OA.
Could anyone explain the flaw in my reasoning?

1) -r + s < 0
-r < -s
Multiple both side by -1, when u do this reverse the inequality
r>s
So, it is sufficient. Once u have statement 1 as sufficient, you can eliminate option B,C,E. Only option A and D are left now.
As statement 2 is not sufficient in itself , we eliminate option D and only possible answer is A.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 360
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 11:28
1
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0 = I re arranged the statement, so r < s so sufficient
(2) r < | s | = here there were two cases given the modulus, so insufficient: case 1) r < s 2) -r > s

But I combined 1) + 2) where the common answer was r < s. But A is OA.
Could anyone explain the flaw in my reasoning?

According to statement 1 -> -r + s < 0 => -r < -s
Multiply both by -1 <— we need to flip the sign
R > S
Sufficient.

Statement 2 has 2 scenarios, when s <0 and when s>0 hence its insufficient.

A. Hope this helps.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!
Senior PS Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Posts: 3360
Location: India
GPA: 3.12
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 11:30
2
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0 = I re arranged the statement, so r < s so sufficient
(2) r < | s | = here there were two cases given the modulus, so insufficient: case 1) r < s 2) -r > s

But I combined 1) + 2) where the common answer was r < s. But A is OA.
Could anyone explain the flaw in my reasoning?

Statement 1 which reads -r + s < 0
Is nothing but -r < -s(when you subtract s from both sides)
When we multiply -1 on both sides, the greater than becomes lesser than (or) lesser than becomes greater than
Therefore, the inequality becomes r>s which alone is sufficient.

These are the options in a GMAT DS question
(A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
(B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
(C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
(D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
(E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

C comes into play only when either 1 or 2 is not enough to prove the statement.

Hope that helps!
_________________
You've got what it takes, but it will take everything you've got
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1686
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2018, 23:31
DesecratoR wrote:
Is r > s ?

(1) -r + s < 0
(2) r < | s |

Well, 1st one is clear but I have some difficulties with second statement. I guessed it's not sufficient but need clarification. Thank you!

Question : Is r > s ?

or r - s > 0 ?

or -r + s < 0 ?

St 1: -r + s < 0 Sufficient

r < | s |

means r < s or r <−s Insufficient

(A)
_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 440
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2018, 17:22
Bunuel wrote:
devinawilliam83 wrote:
Thanks but I am struggling with statement II

The statement tells us that
a) r<-s or :
s -s r r<-s? r>s?
5 -5 6 No
-5 5 -6 Yes No

b) r<s : r cannot be greater than S

both the substatements say thar r is not greater than s therefor should be sufficient

(2) $$r<|s|$$ --> either $$r<s$$ OR $$r<-s$$. Now, try some number to see that this statement is not sufficient: if $$r=1$$ and $$s=2$$ then $$r<s$$ BUT if $$r=1$$ and $$s=-2$$ then $$r>s$$.

Again: this statement tells that absolute value of $$s$$ is more than $$r$$, but $$s$$ itself may be more, as well as less than $$r$$.

Hope it's clear.

Bunuel,

In above solution 2nd part, isn't it be $$r < s$$ or $$r > -s$$ ?
Re: Is r > s ? (1) -r + s < 0 (2) r < | s |   [#permalink] 30 Dec 2018, 17:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by