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.