inequalities

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:07 am
Thanked: 2 times

inequalities

by beater » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:47 pm
Is x negative?

1) (x^3) (1-(x^2)) < 0
2) (x^2) -1 < 0

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: new york
Thanked: 2 times

Re: inequalities

by Gmatss » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:42 pm
beater wrote:Is x negative?

1) (x^3) (1-(x^2)) < 0
2) (x^2) -1 < 0

1.) To satisfy this condition,

either x^3 is neg or (1-(x^2) is negative.
so, -1<x<0 or x>1 it can be positive or negative. so hence insuff

2.) To satisfy this condition

-1<x<1 so can be either positive or negative, insuff

Taking 1 and 2, we know x has to be less than 1 and only negative number satisfy both conditions. therefore C is the answer.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

Re: inequalities

by lunarpower » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:04 am
worth commenting a little more on this one:
Gmatss wrote:1.) To satisfy this condition,

either x^3 is neg or (1-(x^2) is negative.
so, -1<x<0 or x>1 it can be positive or negative. so hence insuff
this is true inasmuch as "or" is used here in the sense of exclusive "or". in other words, exactly one of those two things must be true to satisfy the statement, but not both.

a clearer way to express the result is: x^3 and (1 - x^2) have opposite signs.
once you have the fact that x^3 is negative for x < 0 and positive for x > 0, as well as the fact that (1 - x^2) is negative for x < -1, x > 1 and positive for -1 < x < 1, the result follows.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:42 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Re: inequalities

by Stockmoose16 » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:08 pm
lunarpower wrote:worth commenting a little more on this one:
Gmatss wrote:1.) To satisfy this condition,

either x^3 is neg or (1-(x^2) is negative.
so, -1<x<0 or x>1 it can be positive or negative. so hence insuff
this is true inasmuch as "or" is used here in the sense of exclusive "or". in other words, exactly one of those two things must be true to satisfy the statement, but not both.

a clearer way to express the result is: x^3 and (1 - x^2) have opposite signs.
once you have the fact that x^3 is negative for x < 0 and positive for x > 0, as well as the fact that (1 - x^2) is negative for x < -1, x > 1 and positive for -1 < x < 1, the result follows.
Ron,

Can you please explain why you're separating out the terms in the first statement to determine sufficiency? I didn't think that was allowed.

Consider this example:

Is X positive?

(1) X^3*X^4>0

If you separate out the statements, you'd get:

X^3>0 (which means x is definitely +)
X^4>0 (which means x is - or +)

... this statement would be insufficient, since the combined statements would show X could be either positive or negative.

But here's the problem, X is CLEARLY positive. If you combine the original statement, you get X^7>0. Therefore, X can only be positive to satisfy the statement.

Can you please explain why you were allowed to separate the terms in your original example, but you wouldn't be able to do so in my example?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Thanked: 237 times
Followed by:25 members
GMAT Score:730

Re: inequalities

by logitech » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:50 pm
Stockmoose16 wrote:
lunarpower wrote:worth commenting a little more on this one:
Gmatss wrote:1.) To satisfy this condition,

either x^3 is neg or (1-(x^2) is negative.
so, -1<x<0 or x>1 it can be positive or negative. so hence insuff
this is true inasmuch as "or" is used here in the sense of exclusive "or". in other words, exactly one of those two things must be true to satisfy the statement, but not both.

a clearer way to express the result is: x^3 and (1 - x^2) have opposite signs.
once you have the fact that x^3 is negative for x < 0 and positive for x > 0, as well as the fact that (1 - x^2) is negative for x < -1, x > 1 and positive for -1 < x < 1, the result follows.
Ron,

Can you please explain why you're separating out the terms in the first statement to determine sufficiency? I didn't think that was allowed.

Consider this example:

Is X positive?

(1) X^3*X^4>0

If you separate out the statements, you'd get:

X^3>0 (which means x is definitely +)
X^4>0 (which means x is - or +)

... this statement would be insufficient, since the combined statements would show X could be either positive or negative.

But here's the problem, X is CLEARLY positive. If you combine the original statement, you get X^7>0. Therefore, X can only be positive to satisfy the statement.

Can you please explain why you were allowed to separate the terms in your original example, but you wouldn't be able to do so in my example?
in your analysis, there is something you are missing.

X^3>0 (which means x is definitely +) This is correct but since you have to use the SAME + x for the X^4 ..it can only be positive too.

Please look at the attached diagram
Attachments
ineq.jpg
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"