Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0812:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
22 Apr 2019, 14:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
1) -2x >0
2) x^(3)<0
Didn't want to post this question in the DS forum because I have a question about this...
If this is dealing with inequalities can I isolate for x in the above DS options to determine if x is indeed less than zero? I don't really have to test cases, do I?
Thanks!
2) x^(3)<0
Didn't want to post this question in the DS forum because I have a question about this...
If this is dealing with inequalities can I isolate for x in the above DS options to determine if x is indeed less than zero? I don't really have to test cases, do I?
Thanks!
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 Quantitative Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
22 Apr 2019, 18:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
No, you don't have to test numbers in such a simple question. The question is testing the basic rules of inequalities.
1) -2x > 0
Divide both sides by positive 2
-x > 0
Multiply both sides by -1
x < 0
Note: Whenever you multiply an inequality with a negative number, the sign reverses.
2) \(x^{3}\)< 0
= \(x^{2}\) X \(x^{1}\) < 0
Now \(x^{2}\) is always positive, so we can exclude the expression
\(x^{1}\) < 0
x < 0
Therefore, each of the statements says that x < 0, i.e. x is a negative number.
1) -2x > 0
Divide both sides by positive 2
-x > 0
Multiply both sides by -1
x < 0
Note: Whenever you multiply an inequality with a negative number, the sign reverses.
2) \(x^{3}\)< 0
= \(x^{2}\) X \(x^{1}\) < 0
Now \(x^{2}\) is always positive, so we can exclude the expression
\(x^{1}\) < 0
x < 0
Therefore, each of the statements says that x < 0, i.e. x is a negative number.
22 Apr 2019, 23:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Yes, you do not need to test specific cases as this is a simple inequalities problem.
Considering the two inequalities:
1. -2x > 0.
Taking LHS to RHS, we get:
0 > 2x. Dividing by 2 on both sides:
0 > x --> x < 0
2. x^(3) < 0.
Consider x^(3) like x . x^(2). x^2 is always positive (as it is a square). Hence, the sign will depend on x.
Hence, if x^(3) is less than zero then x must be less than zero.
Both statements independently prove that x < 0.
Considering the two inequalities:
1. -2x > 0.
Taking LHS to RHS, we get:
0 > 2x. Dividing by 2 on both sides:
0 > x --> x < 0
2. x^(3) < 0.
Consider x^(3) like x . x^(2). x^2 is always positive (as it is a square). Hence, the sign will depend on x.
Hence, if x^(3) is less than zero then x must be less than zero.
Both statements independently prove that x < 0.
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 Quantitative Questions 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!
