GDT wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Official Solution:
Statement (1) by itself is insufficient. Let's pick numbers: if the sides of \(ABC\) are 1, 1 and \(\sqrt{2}\) (a half of a square with sides equal to 1), the area equals \(0.5\) and t perimeter is \(2+\sqrt{2}\). The perimeter is much greater than the area of a triangle with these values. However if the sides of \(ABC\) are 10, 10, and \(10\sqrt{2}\); then the perimeter is \(20+10\sqrt{2}\) and the area is 50. The perimeter is much smaller than the area.
Statement (2) by itself is insufficient. All it tells us is that both triangles are similar or proportionate to each other, but nothing about their size.
Statements (1) and (2) combined are insufficient. Combining the two statements, we still cannot determine whether the triangles have small values of their sides that yield greater perimeters or large values that yield greater area measurements.
Answer: E
VeritasKarishmaCan you pls explain why in explanation of statement 1 we are comparing area and perimeter of ABC?
What we are trying to show in statement 1 is that numerical values of area and perimeter are not comparable even with the same triangle. In some cases, area value might be higher, in other cases perimeter value. So knowing that perimeter of one triangle is more than area of another gives us no information about their relative sizes and areas.
Take @Bunuel's numbers:
Say ABC is 1, 1, sqrt(2).
Area < < Perimeter
Say DEF is just like ABC but slightly smaller.
Then, area DEF < area ABC
Say DEF is just like ABC but slightly larger.
Then area of DEF > area ABC.
But in both cases, area ABC < < perimeter of DEF
Hence, this is not enough.