Register    Login    Search    Rss Feeds

 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 



 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Absolutely Less Than 4 -- CAT 6
 Post Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:53 am 
Offline
Students


Posts: 6
If n is not equal to 0, is |n| < 4 ?

(1) n2 > 16

(2) 1/|n| > n


Statement 1: n2>16;

What will be the number whose square is greater than 16.
Square of 4 or -4 = 16. So, required number should be greater than 4….it can be 5,-5, 5.5, -5.5 etc….
Now mode of n i.e. |n| is always 0 or greater than 0. So if n is 5 or -5, mode |n| is 5.

|n| is less than 4? No.

Statement 2: 1/|n| > n, for this..n should be –ve.
When n= -1.
1/|-1| > -1; Yes.
When n=-2.
2/|-2| > -2; Yes.
When n=-10
10/|-10| > -10. Yes.

Now let’s test… |n| < 4. Yes or No.

When n= -1.
|-1|= 1.
1<4. Yes.
When n= -10
|-10| = 10
10 <4…No.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Absolutely Less Than 4 -- CAT 6
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:13 pm 
Offline
ManhattanGMAT Staff


Posts: 6064
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
STatement 2 the way i tried to do it is as follows:

1/|n|>n
then assuming n>0 => -1<n<1
which means that we say yes to the original question, which is asking asking us if -4<n<4


if n > 0, then fractions between 0 and 1 would make the statement 1/|n|>n true, but fractions between -1 and 0 would not. For example, if n=-1/2, then we get -2 > -1/2, which is not true. So this one means only that 0<n<1.

You had one other reason, actually, for eliminating the -1 < n < 0 possibilities: you assumed, upon starting that line of reasoning, than n > 0. So any possibilities in which n < 0 are not valid.

Quote:
now if n<0 => -1/n>n or 1+n^2<0
=> that n^2<-1
to which i said, well this can never be true, since n^2 has to be a positive number. Hence i discarded it as an imaginary solution to the 2nd equation.


I'm not positive where the "negative 1" came from in your first line. I'm guessing you may be trying to account for the fact that you're assuming n is a negative? You don't have to (and shouldn't) add any negatives to the problem in order to assume that. The negatives are already included with the variable n, if we define the variable n to be negative. So you would have: 1/n > n (for n = negative) which equals 1 < n^2 = 1-n^2 < 0.

You might have tested your reasoning on this one by asking yourself: can I think of a negative number that would make this statement true?

n=-2
1/(-2) > -2
-1/2 > -2
is that true? Yes, it is. So, a negative number could work here... hmm, my reasoning that n can't be negative must be wrong. And, in fact, you had decided earlier, when you tried n>0, that n could be negative - you said that it could be between -1 and 0. That might have helped you to realize something went wrong somewhere (even though that reasoning in the first part was actually wrong as well).

_________________
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director of Online Community
ManhattanGMAT


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Absolutely Less Than 4 -- CAT 6
 Post Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:44 am 
Offline
Students


Posts: 45
Dears,

What is the Ans:


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Absolutely Less Than 4 -- CAT 6
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:12 pm 
Offline
ManhattanGMAT Staff


Posts: 1857
yousuf_azim wrote:
Dears,

What is the Ans:


The answer is A.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor


Top 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 





Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: