Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 02:20 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 02:20
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
prince13
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
Posts: 23
Kudos: 93
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
amitdgr
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Last visit: 21 May 2013
Posts: 536
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 536
Kudos: 3,124
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
prince13
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
Posts: 23
Kudos: 93
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
FN
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Last visit: 07 May 2012
Posts: 1,576
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Location: New York City
Concentration: Social Enterprise
Schools:Wharton'11 HBS'12
Posts: 1,576
Kudos: 675
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prince13
Source: McGraw Hill's GMAT Prep 2008
If r + s + p > 1, is p > 1?
(1) p > r + s - 1
(2) 1 - (r + s) > 0
Could you please explain your logic? I'm having trouble thinking this one though. Thanks


r+s-1>-p

1) p>r+s-1

r+s-1>-r-s+1
r+s>-r-s+2
0>-2r-2s+2
2r+2s-2<0
r+s<1 which implies p>1 since p>r+s-1 we dont know if P>1 or not..

2) 1-(r+s)>0
1>r+s


these 2 statements contradict each other..so this leads me to believe the r+s=0 there P>1 so is C the ans if E isnt?
User avatar
scthakur
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Last visit: 30 Jul 2009
Posts: 609
Own Kudos:
Posts: 609
Kudos: 449
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D.

From stmt1: r+s < 1+p
or, r+s+p < 1+2p
or, 1 < 1+2p
or, p > 0.
And, since p >0 hence, p>1, sufficient.

From stmt2:
r+s < 1
or, r+s+p < 1+p
or, 1 < 1+p
or, p > 0 and hence p>1, sufficient.
User avatar
amitdgr
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Last visit: 21 May 2013
Posts: 536
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 536
Kudos: 3,124
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
scthakur
D.

From stmt1: r+s < 1+p
or, r+s+p < 1+2p
or, 1 < 1+2p
or, p > 0.
And, since p >0 hence, p>1, sufficient.

From stmt2:
r+s < 1
or, r+s+p < 1+p
or, 1 < 1+p
or, p > 0 and hence p>1, sufficient.

what if p is a positive fraction < 1 ....
User avatar
scthakur
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Last visit: 30 Jul 2009
Posts: 609
Own Kudos:
Posts: 609
Kudos: 449
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
amitdgr
what if p is a positive fraction < 1 ....

I read "is p>1" as "can p be greater than 1".
User avatar
yezz
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Last visit: 26 Apr 2022
Posts: 833
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 49
Posts: 833
Kudos: 1,661
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Source: McGraw Hill's GMAT Prep 2008

If r + s + p > 1, is p > 1?

(1) p > r + s - 1
(2) 1 - (r + s) > 0

from 1

add

2p+r+s>r+s

2p>0......insuff

from 2

add

1-r-s+r+s+p>1

1+p>1
, p>0..........insuff

i see E is the right answer
User avatar
amitdgr
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Last visit: 21 May 2013
Posts: 536
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 536
Kudos: 3,124
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
yezz
Source: McGraw Hill's GMAT Prep 2008

If r + s + p > 1, is p > 1?

(1) p > r + s - 1
(2) 1 - (r + s) > 0

from 1

add

2p+r+s>r+s

2p>0......insuff

from 2

add

1-r-s+r+s+p>1

1-p>1

-p>0 , p<0..........insuff

i see E is the right answer

Yezz....... see the portion in red
1-r-s+r+s+p>1 ---- this will simplify as 1+p>1


prince13, what is the OA ? B?
User avatar
prince13
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
Posts: 23
Kudos: 93
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OA is B.
I don't understand it. I don't see how they arrive at the part in red; and I strongly do not agree with the final part in blue (what if r+s=0.5; then p=0.6 is a solution, so p<1 and answer would then be NO).

Anyway, the official explanation:

Statement (1) alone is insufficient. The fastest approach to this problem is probably to treat (r+s) as a single variable and plug in values for p.
Note that if (r+s)<1, then it has to be true that p>1; p cannot be 0 or a negative number, because then both r+s+p>1 and p>r+s-1 cannot be true.
If p=1 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is NO;
If p=2 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is YES

Statement (2) alone is Sufficient. You can restate the inequality as -(r+s)>-1, then multiply -1 times both sides (which reverses the direction of the inequality sign) and you get r+s<1, and if both r+s<1 and r+s+p>1 are true, then p>1 and the answer is YES.
User avatar
FN
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Last visit: 07 May 2012
Posts: 1,576
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Location: New York City
Concentration: Social Enterprise
Schools:Wharton'11 HBS'12
Posts: 1,576
Kudos: 675
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
THIS OA is wrong and OE is wronger!!! suppose if r+s=0.9 and p=0.2 ?? r+s+p>1 but p<1

we are not told if P, r and s are integers..

i say throw this Mccgraw hill book away..

prince13
OA is B.
I don't understand it. I don't see how they arrive at the part in red; and I strongly do not agree with the final part in blue (what if r+s=0.5; then p=0.6 is a solution, so p<1 and answer would then be NO).

Anyway, the official explanation:

Statement (1) alone is insufficient. The fastest approach to this problem is probably to treat (r+s) as a single variable and plug in values for p.
Note that if (r+s)<1, then it has to be true that p>1; p cannot be 0 or a negative number, because then both r+s+p>1 and p>r+s-1 cannot be true.
If p=1 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is NO;
If p=2 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is YES

Statement (2) alone is Sufficient. You can restate the inequality as -(r+s)>-1, then multiply -1 times both sides (which reverses the direction of the inequality sign) and you get r+s<1, and if both r+s<1 and r+s+p>1 are true, then p>1 and the answer is YES.
User avatar
scthakur
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Last visit: 30 Jul 2009
Posts: 609
Own Kudos:
Posts: 609
Kudos: 449
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prince13
OA is B.
I don't understand it. I don't see how they arrive at the part in red; and I strongly do not agree with the final part in blue (what if r+s=0.5; then p=0.6 is a solution, so p<1 and answer would then be NO).

Anyway, the official explanation:

Statement (1) alone is insufficient. The fastest approach to this problem is probably to treat (r+s) as a single variable and plug in values for p.
Note that if (r+s)<1, then it has to be true that p>1; p cannot be 0 or a negative number, because then both r+s+p>1 and p>r+s-1 cannot be true.
If p=1 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is NO;
If p=2 and (r+s)=1, then both conditions can be true, and then the answer to the question is YES

Statement (2) alone is Sufficient. You can restate the inequality as -(r+s)>-1, then multiply -1 times both sides (which reverses the direction of the inequality sign) and you get r+s<1, and if both r+s<1 and r+s+p>1 are true, then p>1 and the answer is YES.


Prince, looking at the OE, I feel some portion in your question is incomplete. I do agree with OE provided r,s and p are integers. Does the question explicitly say that r,s and p are integers? If not, OE does not make any sense.

For example, for stmt2: if r+s = 0.9 and p = 0.2, r+s+p > 1, but p < 1.
However, if r,s and p are integers, then if r+s < 1 the only next value could be 0 and in such a case, p > 1.
User avatar
prince13
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Last visit: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
Posts: 23
Kudos: 93
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Good point... I agree that it works if they are integers, but the question doesn't say that. Screenshot shown below to prove I'm not going crazy. This OE is definitely wrong.

Actually I've already found a number of typos in the text part - but first time I've found problems on the CDROM too.
Just now though, I googled the book, and found out the Amazon reviews of it explicitly mention the number of typos in the text! So warning to future bookbuyers: Forget McGraw Hill! :evil: :evil:



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Data Sufficiency (DS) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
Math Expert
105379 posts
GMAT Tutor
1924 posts