srach
Nishant1795
For statement 2, isn't the triplet (6, 8, 10) the only possible solution in which hypotenuse is 4 units more than its legs???
If yes, then the answer could be D.
I have the same doubt. I request anyone to please explain why Statement 2 is insufficient. I mean, algebraically yes, it is insufficient but logically isn't this a sufficient condition?
Bunuel MartyTargetTestPrep JeffTargetTestPrep ScottTargetTestPrepStatement 2 provides a relationship between only two sides, the hypotenuse and the shorter leg. There are an infinite number of triangles such that the difference in length between the hypotenuse and the shorter leg is 4.
You can think of it this way: 6, 8, 10 is the only triangle that fits that difference of 4 constraint and has side lengths that are integer values. However, by playing with the side lengths, we can see that other values are possible if we are not constrained to integer values.
For example, we could add 0.1 to 6 and 10 to have a triangle the lengths of whose shorter leg and hypotenuse are 6.1 and 10.1 respectively. We don't have to do the math to see that such a triangle is possible and that the length of the third side will be a decimal value just a little greater than 8.
We could add 0.2 and do the same thing.
So, Statement 2 is insufficient.