Last visit was: 03 Sep 2026, 23:52 It is currently 03 Sep 2026, 23:52
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
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 27 Jun 2026
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 919
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
anwesharath
Joined: 25 Feb 2020
Last visit: 12 Feb 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 53
Kudos: 10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 113,112
Own Kudos:
838,962
 [3]
Given Kudos: 111,324
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 113,112
Kudos: 838,962
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
anwesharath
Joined: 25 Feb 2020
Last visit: 12 Feb 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
10
 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 53
Kudos: 10
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel

This is extremely helpful! Thank you so much :)
User avatar
KrishnanTN
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 114
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
Products:
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
Posts: 76
Kudos: 126
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think this approach is wrong. Reasons
1) What is the reason behind assuming |x| > |y| please ? This ssumption will only
remove a scenario in which |y| can be greater than |x|. How can that be accounted for in this method please ?
2) How would a student know to make this (incorrect) under the 2 minute time pressure that GMAT Quant imposes ?




MathRevolution
Forget conventional ways of solving math questions. In DS, Variable approach is the easiest and quickest way to find the answer without actually solving the problem. Remember equal number of variables and independent equations ensures a solution.

Is |x - y| > |x| - |y|?

(1) y < x
(2) xy < 0

If we modify the original condition,
if |x|>=|y|,
|x-y|>|x|-|y|>=0, so we can square both sides, which gives us (|x-y|)^2>(|x|-|y|)^2, and (x-y)^2>(|x|-|y|)^2
This becomes x^2+y^2-2xy>x^2+y^2-2|xy|, and if we simplify the inequality, -2xy>-2|xy|, and we ultimately want to know whether xy<0. This makes condition 2 sufficient.
if |x|<|y|, then |x|-|y|<0,
so |x-y|>|x|-|y| always work. Hence we do not need to deal with this, so the answer becomes (B).

Once we modify the original condition and the question according to the variable approach method 1, we can solve approximately 30% of DS questions.
User avatar
dhineshpg
Joined: 02 Apr 2021
Last visit: 26 Jun 2024
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Location: India
GPA: 3.58
WE:Supply Chain Management (Energy)
Posts: 10
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
|x-y|^2 > {|x|-|y|}^2
x2 + y2 - 2xy > x2 + y2 - 2 |x||y|
=> xy < |x||y|

Only case when xy < |x||y| is when x is -ve and y is +ve or x is +ve and y is -ve

Hence, xy < 0

Also, y < x cant be deduced from xy < |x||y|

Can anyone please tell me whether this approach is correct or not?
avatar
rrrkkk
Joined: 07 Sep 2021
Last visit: 02 Mar 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 15
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 14
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY
Quote:
Is |x-y| > |x| - |y| ?
1) y < x
2) xy < 0

|x|= the distance between x and 0 = the RED segment on the number lines below.
|y| = the distance between y and 0 = the BLUE segment on the number lines below.
|x-y| = the distance BETWEEN X AND Y.

Statement 1: y < x
Case 1:
[edq435/absolute_number_line_1.jpg[/img][/url]
|x| - |y| = RED - BLUE.
|x-y| = RED - BLUE.
Thus, |x-y| = |x| - |y|.

Case 2:
[mber_line_2.jpg[/img][/url]
|x| - |y| = RED - BLUE.
|x-y| = RED + BLUE.
Thus, |x-y| > |x| - |y|.
INSUFFICIENT.

Statement 2: xy < 0
Since x and y have different signs, they are on OPPOSITE SIDES OF 0.e_3.jpg[/img][/url]
In each case:
|x| - |y| = RED - BLUE.
|x-y| = RED + BLUE.
Thus, |x-y| > |x| - |y|.
SUFFICIENT.



kudos for this perfect graphic solution. Exact way the asian teachers taught us at school.
User avatar
tkorzhan1995
Joined: 16 Oct 2021
Last visit: 30 Aug 2022
Posts: 104
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Canada
Posts: 104
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja, could you please advice what standard method is worthwhile to remember to solve this type of question? What should be the first step to solve this type of questions?
User avatar
ManishaPrepMinds
Joined: 14 Apr 2020
Last visit: 09 Jul 2026
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 139
Kudos: 191
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Statement (1): y < x
Try different cases:
  1. x = 2, y = 1
    |x - y| = |2 - 1| = 1
    |x| - |y| = 2 - 1 = 1
    → 1 > 1? No
  2. x = 2, y = -1
    |x - y| = |2 - (-1)| = 3
    |x| - |y| = 2 - 1 = 1
    → 3 > 1? Yes
So, sometimes yes, sometimes no
→ Statement 1 is Not Sufficient

Statement (2): xy < 0
→ This means x and y have opposite signs
Try different cases:
  1. x = 2, y = -1
    |x - y| = |2 + 1| = 3
    |x| - |y| = 2 - 1 = 1
    → 3 > 1 Yes
  2. x = -3, y = 1
    |x - y| = |-3 - 1| = 4
    |x| - |y| = 3 - 1 = 2
    → 4 > 2 Yes
  3. x = -4, y = 4
    |x - y| = |-8| = 8
    |x| - |y| = 4 - 4 = 0
    → 8 > 0 Yes
Always true when x and y are of opposite signs
→ Statement 2 is Sufficient

Answer: (B) Statement (2) alone is sufficient





Bunuel
mmphf
Is |x-y|>|x|-|y| ?

(1) y < x
(2) xy < 0

Is |x-y|>|x|-|y|?

Probably the best way to solve this problem is plug-in method. Though there are two properties worth to remember:
1. Always true: \(|x+y|\leq{|x|+|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds for \(xy\geq{0}\) (or simply when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign);

2. Always true: \(|x-y|\geq{|x|-|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds when \(x \leq y \leq 0\) or when \(0 \leq y \leq x\). So, essentially when \(xy \geq 0\) AND \(|x| \geq |y|\). (Our case)

So, the question basically asks whether we can exclude "=" scenario from the second property.

(1) y < x --> we cannot determine the signs of \(x\) and \(y\). Not sufficient.
(2) xy < 0 --> "=" scenario is excluded from the second property, thus \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\). Sufficient.

Answer: B.
User avatar
SanuBest
Joined: 17 Sep 2025
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 29
Location: India
GPA: 8.44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I squared the equation and tested it and arrived at the same answer.

Im sure my approach is wrong but not sure why
Bunuel


Is |x-y|>|x|-|y|?

Probably the best way to solve this problem is plug-in method. Though there are two properties worth to remember:
1. Always true: \(|x+y|\leq{|x|+|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds for \(xy\geq{0}\) (or simply when \(x\) and \(y\) have the same sign);

2. Always true: \(|x-y|\geq{|x|-|y|}\), note that "=" sign holds when \(x \leq y \leq 0\) or when \(0 \leq y \leq x\). So, essentially when \(xy \geq 0\) AND \(|x| \geq |y|\). (Our case)

So, the question basically asks whether we can exclude "=" scenario from the second property.

(1) y < x --> we cannot determine the signs of \(x\) and \(y\). Not sufficient.
(2) xy < 0 --> "=" scenario is excluded from the second property, thus \(|x-y|>|x|-|y|\). Sufficient.

Answer: B.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,289
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 715
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,289
Kudos: 33,897
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi SanuBest,

You landed on B, but the squaring step is genuinely unsafe, and it is the same concern raised earlier in this thread.

The rule you skipped: you can square both sides of an inequality only when both sides are guaranteed non-negative. Squaring preserves an inequality only when nothing on either side is negative.

Look at the stem, |x - y| > |x| - |y|:

- The left side, |x - y|, is always ≥ 0. Fine.
- The right side, |x| - |y|, can be negative. Take x = 1, y = 2, which gives -1.

Once the right side can go negative, squaring can flip the truth of the statement.

A counterexample that exposes it:

- 3 > -5 is clearly true.
- Square both sides: 9 > 25 is clearly false.

Same illegal move, and it reverses the answer, so the squared version is not an equivalent of the original question.

So why did B still come out? Coincidence. Wherever the right side is negative, the original inequality is automatically true, a non-negative value beating a negative one, and those cases happen not to disturb the xy < 0 boundary your algebra produced. The conclusion survived; the reasoning behind it did not, which is exactly the discomfort you felt.

The safe route is the case-testing used throughout this thread: pick concrete numbers obeying each statement and check whether the yes/no answer can change.

Answer: B

SanuBest
I squared the equation and tested it and arrived at the same answer.

Im sure my approach is wrong but not sure why

   1   2   3 
Moderators:
Math Expert
113112 posts
DI Forum Moderator
409 posts