Hi dhwanilms,You're showing exactly the right DS instinct: refusing to assume a sign and asking whether a second case sneaks in. Let me separate the two things that are getting tangled here.
Where the wording landsThe statement says the difference between the
fourth term and the
first term is
35 - stated in that order, as a positive value. The standard reading is
fourth - first = 35, so:
- 5r3 - 5 = 35 → r3 = 8
There's no separate "-35" case being asserted; the problem is telling you the fourth term exceeds the first by
35.
The real reason Statement 2 is sufficientEven if you set the wording aside, the deeper point is
even power vs. odd power.
-
Statement 1 gives r2 =
4. A
square always has two roots: r =
2or r =
-2. That's where the ambiguity comes from - the even power, not the word "difference." Both survive, giving t2 =
10 or
-10.
Not sufficient.
-
Statement 2 gives r3 =
8. A
cube has exactly
one real root: r =
2. There is no r =
-2, because (-2)3 =
-8, not
8. So t2 =
10, one value only.
Sufficient.
That's the asymmetry: a square root forks into ±, but a real cube root does not.
On your r3 = -6 caseThat case only appears if you force 5r3 - 5 =
-35, i.e. read the difference as possibly negative. But the statement fixes the difference as
+35 in the order given, so that branch isn't part of the question. And notice it wouldn't help Statement 1 anyway - there the two answers come straight from the square root, with the difference sign playing no role.
Takeaway: even powers create the ± fork; a single real cube root doesn't. That's why Statement 2 pins t2 down and Statement 1 can't.
Answer: Bdhwanilms
We would need to take modulus while taking the different right (since it is not mentioned whether it is an increasing or decreasing sequence). Hence in the 2nd scenario we would get r^3 = 8 or -6, both of which are possible and hence cannot concluded from statement B alone as well.