December 16, 2018 December 16, 2018 03:00 PM EST 04:00 PM EST Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics December 16, 2018 December 16, 2018 07:00 AM PST 09:00 AM PST Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.
Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 51229

Question Stats:
32% (01:54) correct 68% (01:44) wrong based on 237 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 51229

Re M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Sep 2014, 00:27



Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 184
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11232015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Nov 2015, 22:53
Hello,
Is there any specific approach to solve this type of questions. I find to solve these questions very difficult.
Thanks



Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 98

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Mar 2016, 21:55
Bunuelwhy can we apply same logic, which you applied in option B, in option A. We have x<2/3 y 1/3. please tell me if I am missing anything. y is negative and we are subtracting and ve number.



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7108

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Mar 2016, 22:54
sudhirmadaan wrote: Bunuelwhy can we apply same logic, which you applied in option B, in option A. We have x<2/3 y 1/3. please tell me if I am missing anything. y is negative and we are subtracting and ve number. Hi, I'll try to answer this for you ..
We know x and y are negative numbers ..
and the answer to the Q lies in 1)knowing that if a ive number is multiplied with a bigger positive number/integer, The product will become even smaller.. meaning 3x<2x etc 2) role of < and > signs so if we want to check on the relative values of x and y, they have to brought in some way to same Coeff..
Can you spot the difference in two statements given keeping the above info in mind..
the statements are..
(1) 3x+4<2y+3 So, 3x+1<2y.. 3x<2y1 now x and y are negative integers.. so 3x< 2x.. but we cannot make a relation between 2x and 2y1.. Insuff
(2) 2x−3<3y−4 2x<3y1.. now 3x<2x.. so we can write 3x<2x<3y1.. or 3x<3y1 x<y1/3.. since both x and y are negative numbers and x is lesser than sum of y, a ive number, and another ive number.. x<y Suff
B
_________________
1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolutemodulusabetterunderstanding210849.html#p1622372 2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html 3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effectsofarithmeticoperationsonfractions269413.html
GMAT online Tutor



Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, International Business

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Jun 2016, 07:35
(1) 3x+4<2y+3
3x+1<2y
1.5x+0.5<y
If 1.5 times x (i.e. a ve term) and 0.5 added to it is still less than y, then x should be less that y..isn't it?
what am I doing wrong?
(2) 2x−3<3y−4
2x3+4<3y
2x+1<3y
.66x+.33<y
I used the same logic as stated above....X being ve, .66 times x is also ve and 0.33 added to it is still less than y. Hence x should be less than y.
What is wrong with my approach in (1) ?



Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 76
Location: United States (MN)
GPA: 3.51

GraphicallyOne easy way to do this is to see then the lines intersect by graphing them. In the attached, red is (1), blue is (2), and yellow is the prompt. You can see that (1) intersects with y>x when x, y negative, and thus you can pick options that allow the red line to be true, but can literally go on either side of y > x. For the blue line, that is also possible, but only when y and x are positive. Thus, we know that (2) is sufficient for all x,y negative. AlgebraicallyAnother easy way to do this is to see when the lines intersect, but by using algebra. (1) 2y > 3x+1 Pretend this is 2y=3x+1. Set this equal to what we are comparing it to, y=x, or, 2y=2x. 2y=3x+1=2x They intersect at x = 1. Either side of this, you will a Y or N answer when seeing if (1) is sufficient. (2) 3y > 2x+1 Pretend this is 3y=2x+1. Set this equal to what we are comparing it to, y=x, or, 3y=3x. 3y=2x+1=3x They intersect at x=1. If less than 1, you will always get the same answer when seeing if (2) is sufficient. Since x < 0 < 1, (2) is sufficient.
>> !!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Posts: 5

Why are we using picking numbers for statement 1 and solving the second statement using inequalities and algebra? Both inequalities are of the same nature. Can someone please explain the sufficiency of the first statement using algebra?



Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 166

Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
(1) \(3x + 4 \lt 2y + 3\). Rearrange: \(3x \lt 2y1\). \(x\) can be some very small number, for instance 100 and \(y\) some large enough number for instance 3 and the answer would be YES, \(x \lt y\) BUT if \(x=2\) and \(y=2.1\), then the answer would be NO, \(x \gt y\). Not sufficient. (2) \(2x  3 \lt 3y  4\). Rearrange: \(x \lt 1.5y\frac{1}{2}\). Rewrite as \(x \lt y+(0.5y\frac{1}{2}) = y + \text{negative}\). So, \(x \lt y\) (as \(y+\text{negative}\) is "more negative" than \(y\)). Sufficient.
Answer: B Question: Bunuelcase1) 3x < 2y 1 y=0 => 3x < 1 => x < 0.33 x=0 => y > 0.5 (but y < 0 given). Therefore, we can have both x < y (0.33 < 0.1) and x > y (0.33 > 0.4). Thus 1 NS case2) x < (3/2)y  1/2 y = 0 => x < 1/2 x = 0 => y > 1/3 (but y < 0 given). Therefore, we can have both x < y (0.5 < 0.1) and x > y (0.5 > 0.6). Thus 2 NS Case1+2) x < 0.33 & x < 0.5 => x < 0.33 & y < 0. Thus 1+2 NS => E What am i doing wrong? Can you please clarify Bunuel...



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 51229

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Oct 2017, 11:57
manishtank1988 wrote: Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
(1) \(3x + 4 \lt 2y + 3\). Rearrange: \(3x \lt 2y1\). \(x\) can be some very small number, for instance 100 and \(y\) some large enough number for instance 3 and the answer would be YES, \(x \lt y\) BUT if \(x=2\) and \(y=2.1\), then the answer would be NO, \(x \gt y\). Not sufficient. (2) \(2x  3 \lt 3y  4\). Rearrange: \(x \lt 1.5y\frac{1}{2}\). Rewrite as \(x \lt y+(0.5y\frac{1}{2}) = y + \text{negative}\). So, \(x \lt y\) (as \(y+\text{negative}\) is "more negative" than \(y\)). Sufficient.
Answer: B Question: Bunuelcase1) 3x < 2y 1 y=0 => 3x < 1 => x < 0.666 x=0 => y > 0.5 (but y < 0 given). Therefore, we can have both x < y (0.33 < 0.1) and x > y (0.33 > 0.4). Thus 1 NS case2) x < (3/2)y  1/2 y = 0 => x < 1/2 x = 0 => y > 1/3 (but y < 0 given). Therefore, we can have both x < y (0.33 < 0.1) and x > y (0.33 > 0.4). Thus 2 NS What am i doing wrong? Can you please clarify Bunuel... We are told that BOTH x and y are negative numbers. Can you give an example when that condition and \(2x  3 \lt 3y  4\) are satisfied and x is not less than y?
_________________
New to the Math Forum? Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread  All You Need for Quant  PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!! Resources: GMAT Math Book  Triangles  Polygons  Coordinate Geometry  Factorials  Circles  Number Theory  Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets  PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders  GMAT Prep Software Analysis  SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS)  Tricky questions from previous years.
Collection of Questions: PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.
What are GMAT Club Tests? Extrahard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics



Intern
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Posts: 16

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Oct 2018, 23:07
[url]@chetan2u[/url] I noted that you mentioned that the 2nd witll equate to x<y1/3 but if I take x=2 and y=2 then x<y does not hold true
_________________
RJ



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7108

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Oct 2018, 23:59
Superg8 wrote: [url]@chetan2u[/url] I noted that you mentioned that the 2nd witll equate to x<y1/3 but if I take x=2 and y=2 then x<y does not hold true Hi.. If you take x=y,how can x be less than y.. X and y are NEGATIVE.. AND statement II tells us x<y1/3..( this is true we don't have to prove this) You can't take x=y=2.. If y =2, x<21/3=5/3 so x<5/3 it can be 3,10
_________________
1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolutemodulusabetterunderstanding210849.html#p1622372 2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html 3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effectsofarithmeticoperationsonfractions269413.html
GMAT online Tutor



Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Posts: 5

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Oct 2018, 10:30
Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
(1) \(3x + 4 \lt 2y + 3\). Rearrange: \(3x \lt 2y1\). \(x\) can be some very small number, for instance 100 and \(y\) some large enough number for instance 3 and the answer would be YES, \(x \lt y\) BUT if \(x=2\) and \(y=2.1\), then the answer would be NO, \(x \gt y\). Not sufficient. (2) \(2x  3 \lt 3y  4\). Rearrange: \(x \lt 1.5y\frac{1}{2}\). Rewrite as \(x \lt y+(0.5y\frac{1}{2}) = y + \text{negative}\). So, \(x \lt y\) (as \(y+\text{negative}\) is "more negative" than \(y\)). Sufficient.
Answer: B How did you conclude that (0.5y−0.5) is more negative. if y is positive then that may not be the case.



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7108

Re: M2718
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Oct 2018, 10:33
sakuac wrote: Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
(1) \(3x + 4 \lt 2y + 3\). Rearrange: \(3x \lt 2y1\). \(x\) can be some very small number, for instance 100 and \(y\) some large enough number for instance 3 and the answer would be YES, \(x \lt y\) BUT if \(x=2\) and \(y=2.1\), then the answer would be NO, \(x \gt y\). Not sufficient. (2) \(2x  3 \lt 3y  4\). Rearrange: \(x \lt 1.5y\frac{1}{2}\). Rewrite as \(x \lt y+(0.5y\frac{1}{2}) = y + \text{negative}\). So, \(x \lt y\) (as \(y+\text{negative}\) is "more negative" than \(y\)). Sufficient.
Answer: B How did you conclude that (0.5y−0.5) is more negative. if y is positive then that may not be the case. It is given that y is negative so 0.5y is negative and add another negative term to it 0.5, you get smaller negative number
_________________
1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolutemodulusabetterunderstanding210849.html#p1622372 2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html 3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effectsofarithmeticoperationsonfractions269413.html
GMAT online Tutor



Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Posts: 67
GMAT 1: 490 Q39 V18 GMAT 2: 640 Q47 V30 GMAT 3: 670 Q50 V31 GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4

Keeping it SIMPLE  One trick to remember is that if u can prove \(x = y\) then u can answer YES or NO to a \(x<y\) or \(x>y\) question. Statement 1  \(3x + 4 < 2y + 3\) Rearrange : \(3x  2y < 1\) Simply try\(x = y = 2\) We see that above condition is satisfied. But answer to Is \(x < y?\) is NO. Try \(x = 3\) and \(y = 2\) We see that above condition is satisfied. Hence answer to Is\(x < y?\) is YES. Statement 2  \(2x  3 < 3y  4\) Rearrange : \(2x  3y < 1\) Before testing values. Just observe the equation. The (\(3y\)) part has will always be positive since y is negative. Also, we need to get a negative value so (\(2x)\) part has to be more than the \((3y)\) part. Is this possible if \(x\) and \(y\) are equal? No. Hence we have different values of \(x\) and \(y\). This should be sufficient. Bunuel chetan2u please confirm.










