Bunuel
In the sequence a1,a2,…,an,…, \(a_1=x\) and \(a_n=y-z*a_{n-1}\) for all n>1. Is \(a_3>a_2\)?
(1) z > y^2 + 2
(2) x > y/(z+1)
Kudos for a correct solution. VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:It’s algebra time!
Using the sequence rule, \(a_2=y-za_1=y-zx\). And \(a_3=y-za_2=y-z(y-zx)\).
With these expressions, the question is a3>a2” becomes “is y–z(y–zx)>y–zx?”
Subtract y from both sides:
“is −z(y–zx)>−zx?”
Divide by -1 (don’t forget to flip the inequality!) to get a cleaner question:
“is z(y–zx)<zx?”
However, we can go no further at this point, since the next simplification would be to divide by z. This is unacceptable, because we don’t know whether z is negative and therefore don’t know whether to flip the inequality again.
Let’s turn now to the additional premises.
Statement (1) seems a bit random, but it does do one important thing for us: It establishes that z is positive. (Recall that even powers are always non-negative, which means that z is greater than a nonnegative number plus a positive number.) This allows us to divide both sides of the question “is z(y–zx)<zx?” by z, resulting in:
“is y–zx<x?”
However, we still have three unknowns and only two unconnected inequalities, so statement (1) is insufficient.
Turning to statement (2), we face the same problem. Knowing that x>y/(z+1) just doesn’t answer the question “is z(y–zx)<zx?” There are too many variables and too few unconnected inequalities. Statement (2) is insufficient.
Finally we combine both statements (1) and (2). Recall that statement (1) simplified the question to “is y–zx<x?” Since statement (2) is solved for x, solve this question for x as well:
“is y<zx+x?”
“is y<(z+1)x?”
We can divide by z+1 without flipping the inequality since, remember, z is positive:
“is x>y/(z+1)?”
Now compare statement (2). We know that x>y/(z+1), so… hey, wait a minute… it’s exactly the same! The two statements taken together are sufficient.