Is x negative?
1) (x^3) (1-(x^2)) < 0
2) (x^2) -1 < 0
inequalities
This topic has expert replies
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:29 pm
- Location: new york
- Thanked: 2 times
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
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
worth commenting a little more on this one:
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.
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.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
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
--
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
Ron,lunarpower wrote:worth commenting a little more on this one:
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.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
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.
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?
- logitech
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
- Thanked: 237 times
- Followed by:25 members
- GMAT Score:730
in your analysis, there is something you are missing.Stockmoose16 wrote:Ron,lunarpower wrote:worth commenting a little more on this one:
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.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
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.
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?
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
-
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"