GMAT Math: Notes on Algebra

Ian Stewart
2019
c
Contents
0.1 How to Study Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
0.2 What this Book is About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ARITHMETIC

1 Fundamentals 9

2 The Four Basic Operations 14

2.1 Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 Subtraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Multiplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Order of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6 Mental Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.7 One Specialized Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 Negative Numbers 21
3.1 The Number Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Arithmetic with Negative Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Fractions 23
4.1 Arithmetic with Fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Fractions Within Fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Comparing Fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4 Labeling Digits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.5 Decimals and Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.6 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 Exponents 39
5.1 Exponent Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6 Roots 45
6.1 The Square Root Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2 Simplifying Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.3 Rationalizing Denominators and Mandatory Simplifications . . . . . 51

7 Factorials 55
ALGEBRA

8 Algebraic Techniques 59
8.1 Simple Factoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.2 Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 2
9 Simple Equations 66
9.1 Solving Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9.2 Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9.3 Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9.4 Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

10 Two Equations, Two Unknowns 76

10.1 Substitution with Two Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.2 Adding and Subtracting Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.3 Comparing the Two Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
10.4 Nonlinear Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
10.5 Three Equations in Three Unknowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

11 Quadratic and Related Equations 90

11.1 Multiplying Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
11.2 Factoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
11.3 FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
11.4 Factoring Quadratics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
11.5 The Difference of Squares and Other Factoring Patterns . . . . . . 100
11.6 Quadratics in Data Sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
11.7 Factoring with Larger Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
11.8 The Quadratic Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
11.9 Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

12 Inequalities 117
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
12.2 Simplifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
12.3 Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
12.4 Negatives and Positives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
12.5 Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
12.6 Thinking Conceptually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12.7 Two inequalities, two unknowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
12.8 Exponential Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12.9 Equations, Non-Strict Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
12.10Data Sufficiency Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
12.11Additional Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

13 Absolute Value 159

13.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
13.2 Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
13.3 Absolute Value in Equations or Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
13.4 The Distance Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
13.5 The Cases Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
13.6 Cases and Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
13.7 Absolute Value and Square Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 3
14 Functions and Operations 180
14.1 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
14.2 Functions: Miscellaneous Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
14.3 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

15 Sequences 189
15.1 Definition and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
15.2 Functional Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
15.3 Recursive Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
15.4 Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
15.5 Arithmetic Sequences and Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
15.6 Geometric Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

16 Conclusion 201

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 4
Copyright
Copyright 2019
c by Ian Stewart

The material in this document is copyright the author, and cannot be dis-
tributed in any form without my express consent.

Please don’t share this material with anyone – this is how I make my living! If
you have come across a copy of this file on a download site, I’d be grateful if
you’d let me know where you found it. I can be contacted at:

[email protected]

Internet Forums
I don’t mind if the occasional question from this document is posted to a GMAT
forum, but I’d ask that you not post very many questions. If you have a specific
concern about a question, you can contact me at the email address above, and
I will do my best to reply.

Feedback
I’ve edited each of my documents several times, but it is likely that a few typos
or other errors remain. If you do find any typos, errors, or text you find unclear,
I’d be grateful if you could let me know. I would also love to hear any feedback
you might have about this material, and any suggestions you might have for
improvements.

Disclaimer
GMAT is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admissions
Council (GMAC). I am not affiliated in any way with GMAC.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 5
Introduction
0.1 How to Study Algebra
You will need to do a lot of arithmetic and algebra on the GMAT, but most
GMAT arithmetic and algebra is simple. That’s because most of the time,
you’ll be doing calculations or solving equations that arise from Word Problems,
say, where the question is not primarily testing your algebra skills – so you
might need to find 15% of 180, or solve an equation like 3x − 1 = 35. Because
those situations are so common, it is vitally important to have strong algebraic
fundamentals.
Many people starting their GMAT preparation use basic algebra all the time
in their jobs or academic programs. If that describes you, you likely will want
to only quickly skim many of the preliminary sections in this book, and focus
only on things that look unfamiliar. But many people starting their GMAT
preparation haven’t done any math in years. If that describes you, then you
should not only read and master all of the fundamentals early in this book before
looking at any of the more advanced material, but you should also supplement
the practice questions in this book with additional drills. To become good at
algebra, you need to know what to practice – that’s what this book explains –
but you also need to do the practice. So if you discover, for example, that you
have difficulties adding fractions, or factoring quadratics, or solving 2 equations
/ 2 unknowns problems, you should find drills to work on until you master
each. There are dozens of free sources that provide such drills (even high school
worksheets can be useful, provided the numbers are simple like they will be
on the GMAT). I have not provided many of them here, in part because drills
are already available in so many places, and in part to prevent this book from
running to 1000 pages.
If you have studied from my other books, you already will have learned much
of the algebra and arithmetic explained here – my books on each other Quant
topic review the algebra relevant to that topic. That said, the emphasis in this
book is different: while my Number Theory book, for example, discusses how
to factor primarily in numerical situations, for example when you see 37 − 35
or 3012 − 2992 , this book focuses more on how to factor when you are working
with unknowns, so how to factor when you see x7 − x5 , or x2 − y 2 . The theory is
generally the same, however, so if you’ve already studied from my other books,
you should be able to proceed very quickly through many sections of this book.
If you haven’t, then studying the material here first will allow you to quickly
skim some sections of those other books.
One more advanced point: any time you learn an algebraic rule, you should
think about how you can use that rule in both ‘directions’. Usually a rule is
taught as a way to combine two things. So for example, when you learn how to
add fractions, you’re normally taught that when you add two fractions with a
common denominator:
x 3
+
7 7

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 6
you can add the numerators, leaving the denominator unchanged, to get
x+3
7
Of course, that’s extremely useful. But we can also do this in the opposite
direction. Sometimes we’ll have a sum in the numerator of a fraction, like this:
3y + 5
y
and we can break this apart into the sum of two separate fractions:
3y 5
+
y y
which is equal to, canceling the y from the first fraction
5
3+
y
It might not be useful to do that – it all depends on what the question is asking
for – but it is important to know that you can do that. Then you’ll have the
flexibility to rewrite any expression in whatever way a question demands. I will
sometimes emphasize this point later in the text as well, but if you learn a rule
that lets you put two things together – for example (x5 )(x7 ) = x12 – imagine
also starting from the result, x12 , and ask “how does this rule let me break
x12 apart?” We need to do that about as often as we need to put x5 and x7
together.

0.2 What this Book is About

This book discusses two related topics in mathematics: Arithmetic and Algebra.

Arithmetic is concerned with how numbers are combined, by addition, sub-

traction, multiplication, division, and so on. The GMAT is not a test of compu-
tational ability – you will not need to multiply five-digit numbers together, for
example. That said, basic arithmetic skills are required in most GMAT ques-
tions, and you will need to be able to perform simple arithmetic quickly and
accurately.
Purely arithmetic problems are common on the GMAT. For example, you
may need to work out the value of

311 − 39
38
Such problems may appear, at first, to require a strenuous calculation, but by
using techniques like factoring, such problems can always be solved in a simple
way. The relevant techniques are discussed in detail in this book, so if they

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 7
are unfamiliar, you might return to this example after reviewing exponents and
factoring. In the problem above, for example, if we recognize that 38 can be
factored from the numerator and canceled from the denominator, we can get
the answer without needing to calculate the numerical value of 311 :

311 − 39 (38 )(33 − 3)

8
= = 33 − 3 = 27 − 3 = 24
3 38
Algebra is the field of mathematics concerned with expressions, formulas,
equations or inequalities involving one, or sometimes several, unknowns. Typi-
cally letters like x or y are used to represent unknown quantities in an expres-
sion, equation or inequality. So the problem above can be turned into an algebra
question by replacing some part of it with a letter; you might be asked to find
the value of x in an equation like the following:

311 − x3
= 24
38
This is now a more difficult problem. If you have a strong background in Algebra
already, it might be clear what steps you need to perform to find the value of x.
If you don’t have that background, this book will explain all of the techniques
you will need. If this equation is one you would not yet be able to solve, you
might return to it after reading the sections of this book that discuss exponents,
factoring, and solving equations. For later reference, we can solve this equation
by first multiplying both sides of the equation by 38 , then adding x3 to both
sides, then finally subtracting (38 )(24) from both sides. Then we can factor to
find the value of x3 , and finally find x by taking a cube root:

311 − x3
= 24
38
311 − x3 = (38 )(24)
311 = x3 + (38 )(24)
x3 = 311 − (38 )(24)
x3 = (38 )(33 − 24)
x3 = (38 )(27 − 24)
x3 = (38 )(3)
x3 = 39
x = 33
x = 27

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 8
 Arithmetic
1 Fundamentals
There are certain things you simply need to know for the GMAT. Most GMAT
books recommend memorizing far too many powers, roots, factorials, primes,
and other values – things that would literally never help you on the test. You
will never benefit from knowing the value, say, of 232 or 73 or 8!. But without
knowing the fundamentals listed below, it is very difficult to solve many prob-
lems as quickly as the test expects you to.

Multiplication:
You need to know your times table up to 12 × 12 perfectly, instantly, and
flawlessly. If you are ever making mistakes multiplying 8 × 7 or 11 × 12, make
flashcards and test yourself a few minutes each day until you know everything.
In addition, there are two larger products that are worth recognizing:

7 × 13 = 91

and
11 × 13 = 143
When you are studying these numbers, it’s important to know why you are
learning them. Yes, you might need to multiply 7 by 13 in a GMAT question,
but even if you hadn’t memorized its value, that would only take a couple of
seconds to do by hand. It won’t make much of a difference if you know it by
heart. But if instead you need to prime factorize a number like 637, you might
see that this is (7)(91), but you would then need to recognize that you are not
done. You would need to recognize that 91 can be divided into two smaller
primes.
The two numbers 91 and 143 are the only two small numbers (less than 150)
which are not prime, but which you might think are prime, at a glance, if you
only knew your 12 by 12 times table and the divisibility tests for 2, 3 and 5. So
if you are making flashcards to study these numbers, or numbers in the ordinary
times table, be sure to study in both directions: on some days look at one side
of the card, which might say “7 × 13”, and be sure you know what that product
equals, but on other days look at the other side of the card, which might say
“91”, and be sure you know how to divide that number into two smaller divisors.

Squares:
In addition to the perfect squares found in the ordinary times table (1, 4, 9,
16, and so on up to 122 = 144), it is also worthwhile memorizing the following:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 9
 132 = 169
142 = 196
152 = 225
162 = 256
252 = 625

Learning 142 is optional (and not likely to help), but it is so similar to 132
that it is easy to remember. You should also know how to square any simple
multiple of 10 (for example, 402 = 42 × 102 = 1600).
When memorizing these things, it is important to know why you are learning
these values. It will sometimes be true that you need to calculate the value of
152 , and knowing this by rote will save a small amount of time. But it’s more
important to know these values ‘in reverse’: it will often happen that you will see
a number like 169 or 625 in a question. The numbers in GMAT questions are not
chosen randomly. If you see one of those numbers, you will want to recognize
that they are squares of integers, because that is very likely the reason the
number appears in the question, and if you do not recognize why the number is
special, you might not know what to do with it.
Cubes: It is useful to know the smallest integer cubes, particularly the
cubes of the three smallest prime numbers, 2, 3 and 5:

23 = 8
33 = 27
43 = 64
53 = 125
63 = 216

It is rare that you would need to know 63 . You should also know how to
cube powers of 10 (the ‘tower of powers’ exponent rule, discussed in the chapter
on Exponent Rules, is sometimes useful for that), and simple multiples of 10;
for example 203 = 23 × 103 = 8000.
Higher Powers:
The only fourth (or higher) powers worth learning are those of the three
smallest primes, 2, 3 and 5. But if you’ve learned the squares above, you
already know most of these. Because of the exponent rules that will be covered
later, notice that, for example:

34 = (32 )2 = 92 = 81

and
54 = (52 )2 = 252 = 625

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 10
It is almost never useful to know higher powers of 3 or 5. You should also
recognize that all of these numbers are powers of 2:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256

You also should know what any integer power of 10 is equal to. For example,
106 is a ‘1’ followed by six zeros, so is equal to 1, 000, 000, or one million.
Square Roots
Of course, if you have learned the perfect squares above, then you have
already
√ learned all the integer square roots you will need to know; for example
169 = 13. It is also useful to know estimates (to one decimal place) of the
square roots that show up most often in geometry:

√
2 ≈ 1.4
√
3 ≈ 1.7
√
Very rarely it will be useful to know that 5 ≈ 2.2. In the rare cases where
you might need to estimate a larger root, you would ordinarily interpolate,
√ by
locating a nearby familiar root. For
√ example, if
√ you needed to estimate 31, you
would notice that it is between 25 = 5 and 36 = 6, so its value is probably
around 5.6. You would never need a better estimate than that.
Factorials:
There is really no reason to memorize the values of any factorials, since in
the very rare questions where you might need to compute the value of, say, 5!,
it doesn’t take much time to do it. Factorials do show up in Number Theory
and in Counting and Probability questions from time to time, but most often,
you will end up working with expressions something like:
9!
6! × 3!
and in such questions, computing the values of each factorial would be an absurd
waste of time – instead, you would always want to cancel first, before doing any
multiplication:
9! 9×8×7
= = (3)(4)(7) = 84
6! × 3! 3×2×1
Decimals:
It is important to know the decimal equivalents of the fractions with small
1
denominators which have simple decimal expansions (the fraction is not in
7
this list, because its decimal is complicated, and you will never need to know
it):

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 11
 1
= 0.5
2
1
= 0.333 . . .
3
1
= 0.25
4
1
= 0.2
5
1
= 0.1666 . . .
6
1
= 0.125
8
1
= 0.1111 . . .
9
1
= 0.1
10
1
= 0.09090909 . . .
11
If the numerator is not 1, you can find the equivalent decimal just by multi-
3
plying the decimal above by the numerator. So to find the decimal of, say, ,
11
we have:
 
3 1
= (3) = (3)(0.090909 . . .) = 0.27272727 . . .
11 11
If this type of calculation is not one you feel you would be able to perform
reasonably quickly (or correctly), then you may wish to commit to memory the
decimal equivalents of fractions with larger numerators when the denominator
is specifically 3, 4 and 8, since those are the ones you will need most often (and
you will often need to convert to decimal fractions with a denominator of 10,
100, or 1000, or occasionally a larger power of 10, but that does not require any
47
memorization – = 0.47 for example).
100
From the list above, we can also produce decimals when our denominator is
equal to some power of 10 multiplied by one of the denominators above. So for
example:
    
1 1 1 1
= = (0.333 . . .) = 0.03333 . . .
30 10 3 10
If you need to convert other fractions to decimal, it will almost always be in
one of two situations. Either the denominator will be a factor of some power
of 10, so you can, by multiplying the numerator and denominator by the right
value, create a power of 10 in the denominator, and easily convert to decimal,
as in the following:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 12
   
7 7 4 28
= = = 0.28
25 25 4 100
Or, if the denominator is more exotic than anything above, it will almost
always be true that you only need to find an approximate value of the decimal.
While later chapters will discuss other techniques, often the easiest thing to
do is to locate nearby fractions that you know the decimal equivalent for, and
4
interpolate. So if you needed to know roughly what was equal to, you could
21
simply notice that:
4 4 4
< <
25 21 20
so
4
0.16 < < 0.2
21
4 4
and since is closer to , its decimal will be closer in value to 0.2 than to
21 20
0.16, so 0.19 should be a good estimate (in fact, the exact value is 0.19048, to
five decimal places).

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 13
2 The Four Basic Operations
The four elementary arithmetic operations – addition, subtraction, multiplica-
tion and division – are the foundation of all of algebra. It is worthwhile recalling
just what these operations mean when you are working with whole numbers.

2.1 Addition
Suppose you have 7 apples, and you buy 12 more apples. If we want to know
how many apples we then have in total, we add : we have 12 + 7 = 19 apples. By
extension, if we add 12 of anything to 7 of anything, we have 19 of that thing:

12a + 7a = 19a
√ √ √
12 2 + 7 2 = 19 2
12(197 ) + 7(197 ) = (19)(197 )
12(x + 1)2 + 7(x + 1)2 = 19(x + 1)2

2.2 Subtraction
Suppose you have 14 apples, and you eat 3 apples. If we want to know how
many apples we have left, we subtract: we have 14 − 3 = 11 apples left. By
extension, if we subtract 3 of something from 14 of something, we have 11 of
that thing:

14a − 3a = 11a
√ √ √
14 2 − 3 2 = 11 2
14(115 ) − 3(115 ) = (11)(115 )
14(x3 − 1) − 3(x3 − 1) = 11(x3 − 1)

Notice that, conceptually, addition and subtraction are the same type of
operation, in the sense that we can always rewrite a subtraction using addition
instead. For example, if we want to subtract 5 from x, that is the same as
adding −5 to x:
x − 5 = x + (−5)
For this reason, algebraic rules governing addition are almost always identical
to the rules governing subtraction. For example, whether you are adding or
subtracting two fractions, you want to get a common denominator. Rules for
addition and subtraction also tend to be complicated, at least when compared to
the rules for multiplication and division. For example, when you multiply two
fractions, you do exactly what you might guess: you multiply the numerators
and multiply the denominators:
  
3 2 6
=
5 7 35

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 14
The rule for multiplication is simple. But when you add (or subtract) two
fractions, you can never simply add (or subtract) the two numerators and two
denominators;
3 2
+
5 7
5
is certainly not equal to . You must get a common denominator first – the
12
rule is complicated. The same is true when combining expressions involving
exponents or roots: the rules for multiplication and division tend to be straight-
forward, and often work as you’d guess. For example, if you guessed that we
can multiply two square roots:
√  √  √
2 3 = 6

you would be right. The rule is simple. But we can’t add or subtract two square
roots (except
√ in √ some√special
√ cases). In fact there is no rule at all that lets you
simplify 2 + 3 or 5 − 3.

2.3 Multiplication
Suppose apples are sold in baskets containing 6 apples each, and you buy 5
baskets of apples. From the above, we would then have 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 apples.
This is precisely what it means to multiply 6 by 5. That is, if we multiply
something by 5, we get the same value that we would get if we added that
thing to itself five times. So by using multiplication, we can write long sums of
identical things much more concisely:
x + x + x + x + x = 5x
√ √ √ √ √ √
3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3=5 3
5 + 5 + 59 + 59 + 59 = (5)(59 )
9 9

So when we add identical things, we can express the result in a more con-
densed way by using multiplication. If instead we multiply identical things, we
can express the result in a more condensed way by using an exponent. If we
multiply a number by itself four times, for example, so if we have (7)(7)(7)(7),
then we can write this in a more compact way as 74 . So an expression with an
exponent is just an abbreviated way of writing a product of identical numbers.

Note the important distinction:

7 + 7 + 7 + 7 = (4)(7)
whereas
(7)(7)(7)(7) = 74
and in general
x + x + x + x = 4x
whereas
(x)(x)(x)(x) = x4

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 15
2.4 Division
Suppose you have 36 apples, and you put them in baskets containing 9 apples
each. That is, we are dividing the 36 apples into groups of 9. We may want
to know how many baskets, or groups, we can make. This is the definition of
division: we will have 36 ÷ 9 = 4 baskets or groups. Notice that division is the
inverse of multiplication. If we have 4 baskets each containing 9 apples, we have
4 × 9 = 36 apples in total. If we have 36 apples, and divide them into groups of
9, we have 36 ÷ 9 = 4 baskets in total.
The division symbol ‘÷’ is only rarely used on the GMAT. There is an
alternative way to write division, using fractions. By definition,
a
a÷b=
b
Notice that, conceptually, multiplication and division are the same type
of operation, in the sense that we can rewrite any division by instead using
multiplication. For example, if we want to divide x by 3, that is the same as
1
multiplying x by :
3  
x 1
= (x)
3 3
For this reason, the algebraic rules governing multiplication are almost al-
ways very similar to (but usually the reverse of) the rules governing division.
For example, if you are multiplying two expressions with exponents, and the
same base, say 7:
79 × 74 = 713
we add the exponents, whereas if we divide in the same situation

79
= 75
74
we subtract the exponents.
Of course, all of the relevant rules are covered in detail in later chapters of
this book.

2.5 Order of Operations

We do not generally carry out mathematical calculations from left to right. For
example, when seeing 2 + 3 × 4, you should not first add the 2 and the 3, and
then multiply the result by 4. Some people use the mnemonic BEDMAS (or
PEDMAS) to remind themselves of the correct order in which to evaluate an
arithmetic calculation: things in Brackets (or Parentheses) must be evaluated
first, then Exponents, then Divisions and Multiplications, and lastly Additions
and Subtractions. So to evaluate 2 + 3 × 4, we must first carry out the multi-
plication, to get 2 + 12, and lastly add, to get 14. With practice, recognizing
the correct order of operations in a given situation becomes second nature, and

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 16
GMAT questions rarely try to confuse the issue anyway by using symbols like ×
and ÷. The example above would normally be written 2 + (3)(4), which makes
it clearer that the multiplication should be performed first (and that’s also how
you should write that calculation, if it is a step in a longer solution you are
carrying out). The GMAT used to include occasional questions that specifically
tested order of operations, like the question below, but I haven’t seen a similar
question in several years:
Sample Question 1.

1 + 2 × 3 − 4 ÷ 5 + (6 − 7)2 =

A) 0
B) 0.8
C) 2
D) 5.2
E) 7.2
Solution 1. We must first carry out the calculation in brackets to get

1 + 2 × 3 − 4 ÷ 5 + (6 − 7)2 = 1 + 2 × 3 − 4 ÷ 5 + (−1)2

We then evaluate the exponent:

=1+2×3−4÷5+1

We then perform the multiplications and divisions:

4
= 1 + (2)(3) − + 1 = 1 + 6 − 0.8 + 1
5
and lastly the additions and subtractions:

= 7.2

2.6 Mental Arithmetic

The GMAT is not a test of computational ability, but it is important to be
able to perform moderately complicated arithmetic quickly and correctly, and
simple arithmetic instantaneously. So if you do not yet know, for example,
multiplication tables up to 12 by 12, learn those before doing anything else.
When working with positive integers (the most common situation on the
GMAT, since most word problems concern only positive integer quantities) long
addition or long multiplication are rarely necessary, since the numbers in GMAT
questions are never extraordinarily complicated. I have never used either on a
real GMAT question. But you absolutely must have some reliable technique to

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 17
perform the kinds of calculations in the examples below. I explain how I’d do
these calculations using mental arithmetic, but if you do not find you can use
those techniques yourself, then be sure you have another method – if necessary,
do learn long addition or multiplication and use it.
Suppose you needed to perform the following calculation:

787 + 696 =

Long addition will work, but it is more time-consuming than necessary, and since
it involves many steps, it may be more error-prone than a mental calculation
done properly. To add two moderately large numbers, in general one can do as
follows:
• round one of the numbers off to something simple (with three digit num-
bers, a multiple of 100 would normally be the best choice)
• now add this simple number to the other number
• finally adjust the calculation to compensate for the rounding you did in
the first step
So to add 787 + 696, we can instead round 696 up to 700, and add that to
787. Since we only now need to keep track of one digit, the hundreds digit, that
calculation is easy: we get 1487. But we rounded 696 up by exactly 4, so we
finally need to subtract that 4 from 1487 to get the answer of 1483.
In other words, to add 696 to something else, we can add 700 and then
subtract 4. Written out, what we are doing is this:

787 + 696 = 787 + 700 − 4 = 1487 − 4 = 1483

If you can keep track of the individual numbers that crop up during this type
of calculation, it is the kind of thing you may well be able to learn to do in your
head, if you haven’t learned it before.
To give another example, to complete this sum (similar to what you might
need to calculate when adding prices in a supermarket) :

1.99 + 3.99 + 7.99 + 17.99 + 24.99 =

we can round each of the five numbers up by one cent, so we are adding simple
integers, but then subtract 5 cents at the end, to compensate for the rounding
that we did. So the answer is just:

2 + 4 + 8 + 18 + 25 − 0.05 = 57 − 0.05 = 56.95

The above is convenient when at least one number is just below a multiple
of 100. When you are adding two numbers not much bigger than multiples of
100, often it is easiest to add the hundreds digits first, then add the smaller
pieces afterwards. For example, to add:

523 + 309

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 18
I would just add 500 + 300 first, to get 800, then add the 23 and 9 to that, to
get 832 (or you could just add 523 and 300, then add 9).
We can perform subtractions in a similar way. For example if we need to
subtract
383 − 197
we can round the 197 up to 200, and then adjust. That is, we can instead
subtract 200, which is too much, but then add 3:
383 − 197 = 383 − 200 + 3 = 183 + 3 = 186
Since we only need to work with one digit at a time doing this, each step is
simple.
It is also often possible to do somewhat complicated multiplications mentally.
Say you need to multiply 11 × 27. You can first calculate 10 × 27 and add that
to 1 × 27, to get 270 + 27 = 297. That is exactly what you are doing when you
do long multiplication; algebraically we are just doing the following:
(11)(27) = (10 + 1)(27) = (10)(27) + (1)(27) = 270 + 27 = 297
Sometimes, however, it may be easier to rewrite a number using a subtraction
rather than an addition. This is normally true if one of the numbers in your
product is just below a simple multiple of 10. So for example, if you need to
compute the value of 19 × 47, it would instead be easier to work out 20 × 47 and
then subtract 1 × 47, to get 940 − 47 = 893. Algebraically we are just doing the
following:
(19)(47) = (20 − 1)(47) = (20)(47) − (1)(47) = 940 − 47 = 893
Note that in many questions which appear to require complex calculations, a
rough estimate will be all you need to select the correct answer choice – before
doing any calculation, glance at the answer choices to determine how precise
your calculation will need to be. If answers are far apart, then you can liberally
round values off, whereas if answer choices are close together, you may need to
perform an exact calculation. Note also that concepts from number theory can
often be used to select correct answers without performing much arithmetic –
if answer choices all end in different units digits, for example, you only need to
compute the units digit of the correct answer, and if you know something about
the divisibility properties of the correct answer, that alone may let you select
the correct answer. So for example, if you know the correct answer must be
divisible by 9, by summing the digits of each answer choice you may sometimes
quickly find that only one answer choice can be correct. My Number Theory
book discusses these concepts in more detail.
One crucially important note about the techniques above: it is vastly more
important on the GMAT to be right than to be fast. For me, the techniques
above not only save time, they also help me to avoid careless mistakes. But
you should evaluate them for yourself. If you find you are unable to apply
the techniques above, or sometimes make mistakes using them, then be sure
to instead use a (perhaps slower) method that will always give you the right
answer.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 19
2.7 One Specialized Technique
The difference of squares factorization: x2 −y 2 = (x+y)(x−y) can sometimes be
used to calculate products quickly. For example, when multiplying two numbers,
if the midpoint of the two numbers is a familiar perfect square, the difference
of squares may simplify the calculation:

(43)(37) = (40 + 3)(40 − 3) = 402 − 32 = 1600 − 9 = 1591

or

(1.03)(0.97) = (1 + 0.03)(1 − 0.03) = 1 − (0.03)2 = 1 − 0.0009 = 0.9991

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 20
3 Negative Numbers
3.1 The Number Line
Negative numbers are to the left of zero on the number line; positive numbers
are to the right of zero.

−2 −1 0 1 2
If x is negative, then x < 0, and if x is positive, then x > 0. Notice one
important feature of the number line above: the negative portion of the num-
ber line is the ‘mirror image’ of the positive portion of the number line. So
on the negative number line, everything is ‘backwards’, and every inequality is
reversed. We know, for example, that 9 > 7, but if we make these numbers
negative, we see that −9 < −7, since −9 is to the left of −7. Similarly, since
0.014 > 0.011, then if we make these numbers negative, we must reverse the
inequality: −0.014 < −0.011.

It is of paramount importance to constantly think of negative numbers in

Inequality questions, as we discuss in that chapter. But negative numbers are
the basis of many ‘traps’ in equation-based algebra questions as well. You will
avoid a lot of these traps if you are always asking yourself, when solving any
pure algebra question on the GMAT, “could there be a negative solution that I
am missing?” Almost every GMAT book includes a question somewhat similar
to the one below (if you aren’t familiar with absolute value, return to the second
Statement later):
Sample Question 2. What is the value of a?
1) a2 = 81
2) |a| = 9
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 2. Using both statements together, a can be equal to 9, but a can
also be equal to −9, so the answer is E.
The question above is one that might ‘trick’ a low-level test taker who does
not consider negatives when looking at one or the other statement, but it is about
as obvious an example of a ‘negative numbers trap’ question that you could find
on the test. But this ‘trap’ also shows up in the hardest Algebra questions,
most often in Inequalities questions, but also in equation-based questions. For
example (if you aren’t familiar with quadratic equations, return to this example
after reading that section):

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 21
Sample Question 3. If a and b are integers, what is the value of a?
1) (x + b)2 = x2 + ax + 4 for every value of x
2) b < a
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 3. If we expand (x + b)2 , we get

x2 + 2bx + b2

We know this is always equal to x2 + ax + 4, so

x2 + 2bx + b2 = x2 + ax + 4

and subtracting x2 on both sides,

2bx + b2 = ax + 4

If these are equal for every value of x, they are certainly equal if x = 0, and
if we substitute zero for x, we find that b2 = 4 must be true, and either b = 2
or b = −2. If we now subtract 4 from both sides (using the fact that b2 = 4),
we find that 2bx = ax, so 2b = a. Since b is either 2 or = 2, then respectively
a = 4, or a = −4. So Statement 1 is not sufficient. Statement 2 alone is clearly
not sufficient, but using both statements, we know b < a, so it cannot be true
that b = −2 and a = −4, and we must have b = 2 and a = 4. The answer is
C.

Notice that a test taker who does not systematically analyze Statement 1 in
the question above might jump to the conclusion that b = 2 just by inspection
(or because everything might ‘appear’ to be positive because of the plus signs
everywhere), and miss the second negative possibility.

3.2 Arithmetic with Negative Numbers

When you add two negatives, the result will always be negative. When you
add a positive and negative number, the result is sometimes positive, some-
times negative, depending on which number has the larger absolute value (or
equivalently, which number is further from zero).
Importantly, whenever you multiply or divide two negative numbers, the
result is always positive. If you multiply or divide one negative and one positive
number, the result is always negative. These facts are crucially important in
Inequalities questions, so are discussed at length in that chapter.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 22
4 Fractions
id 00157

4.1 Arithmetic with Fractions

Multiplication:
To multiply fractions, we just multiply the numerators and denominators,
so:
5 2 10
× =
7 11 77
and
a x ax
× =
b y by
a
Notice that if we multiply a fraction by = 1, where a is any nonzero
a
number or algebraic expression, then we do not change the overall value of the
fraction (because we are multiplying by 1), but we do change how the fraction
looks:
2 4 20 88 2x
= = = =
3 6 30 132 3x
We need to do this all the time when we add or subtract fractions, since to
add or subtract two fractions, we need to first rewrite them so that they have
identical denominators.
We can also reverse the above: if the numerator and denominator share some
common factor d, we can cancel that factor from both. So for example

14 (7)(2) 2
= =
21 (7)(3) 3

and
8x (x)(8) 8
= =
9x (x)(9) 9
This process, of canceling factors common to the numerator and denominator,
is called reducing a fraction. Completely reducing fractions is a required simpli-
fication in math, so you must do it if you arrive at a fraction as your answer to
a GMAT question – otherwise you might have the right answer but might not
see your answer among the answer choices. Reducing fractions is also almost
always a good thing to do as soon as you can do it (in a multi-step problem),
since it leads to smaller and therefore easier numbers.
One exception would be if you know you’ll need to add two fractions, and
already have a common denominator – then you would not normally cancel
immediately, since you want to preserve the common denominator. So in a
probability question, you might arrive, say, at this sum:

(8)(7) (6)(5)
+
(15)(14) (15)(14)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 23
and here it would be better to add the fractions first, while you have the common
denominator, before canceling anything.
One important point about multiplying fractions quickly by hand: you
should always cancel first and multiply last. Many people are in the habit of
doing the reverse: multiplying everything out, and then canceling as a last step,
because that’s what you would do with a calculator. But it’s the opposite of
what you should do with pen and paper. If you need to multiply, say:
7 5
×
15 14
it is much easier to cancel a 7 and a 5 from the numerator and denominator
first, and multiply only as the last step:

7 5 (7)(5) (1)(1) 1
× = = =
15 14 (15)(14) (3)(2) 6

than it is to do
7 5 35 1
× = =
15 14 210 6
Notice the many advantages: the numbers you end up multiplying are smaller,
and thus easier to work with, not only quickly, but also accurately, since smaller
numbers are more familiar. And since you always need to cancel at some point
anyway, you might as well do it when the numbers are broken up and the
cancellations are easier to see. An even more trivial example is this kind of
product, which often appears in the solution to probability problems:

8 7 6 5 (8)(7)(6)(5) 5
× × × = =
9 8 7 6 (9)(8)(7)(6) 9

Notice here we do not need to do any multiplication at all if we cancel first.

Addition and Subtraction:

To add or subtract fractions, you need to get a common denominator, and
then you can simply add or subtract the numerators:
2 1 8 5 13
+ = + =
5 4 20 20 20
or
2 1 4 3 1
− = − =
3 2 6 6 6
a
We produce a common denominator by multiplying each fraction by , so by 1,
a
which preserves the value of the fraction while changing its denominator. In the
2 4
first example above, we multiplied the by to create a denominator of 20,
5 4
1 5
and then multiplied the by to create an identical denominator of 20. In this
4 5
case, the common denominator we chose was the product of the denominators

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 24
of the fractions we were adding. You can always use the product of the two
denominators as your common denominator. But if you can quickly see it, the
Least Common Multiple of the two denominators will be a better choice, since
that will both lead to smaller, and therefore easier, numbers overall, and that
will also save some cancellation at the end. So for example, when adding these
fractions, it is easier to use a denominator of 30 than a denominator of 150:
3 4 9 8 17
+ = + =
10 15 30 30 30
If instead your fractions contain algebraic expressions in denominators, most
of the time you will simply be obligated to use their product as your common
denominator:
    
1 1 x 1 x−1 1 x x−1 2x − 1
+ = + = + = 2
x−1 x x x−1 x−1 x (x)(x − 1) (x)(x − 1) x −x
There are exceptions however, when the two denominators share some algebraic
factor. For example, if your denominators are xy and x2 , you can use x2 y as
the common denominator, rather than the product x3 y:
1 1 x y x+y
+ = 2 + 2 = 2
xy x2 x y x y x y
Division:
The reciprocal of a fraction is the fraction you obtain by ‘flipping’ the fraction
upside down, or in other words by exchanging the numerator and denominator.
5 2 1 3
So the reciprocal of is , and the reciprocal of 3 is (because 3 = ). If a
2 5 3 1
fraction is negative, its reciprocal will also be negative.
To divide by a fraction, you can instead multiply by its reciprocal:
2


3
2 5 5
2 = 3 × 2 = 3
5

The same principle obtains when we divide a fraction by a whole number: again,
you multiply the fraction by the reciprocal of that number:
2

  
5 2 1 2
= =
3 5 3 15
Sample Question 4. If
1
x=  
1
( 31 )
1
y = 1

4
1
z=
5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 25
which of the following is true?
A) x < y < z
B) x < z < y
C) y < x < z
D) z < y < x
E) z < x < y
Solution 4.
1 1 1
x=  = 3 =
1 1× 1
3
( 13 )
1 4
y = 1
= 1 × = 4
4
1
1
z=
5
so z < x < y.
Exponents:
To raise a fraction to an exponent, you can raise the numerator and denom-
inator to that exponent:
 3
2 23 8
= 3 =
3 3 27
Roots:
To take the square root of a fraction, you can take the square root of the
numerator and of the denominator, provided they are both positive:
r √
4 4
=√
9 9
The same rule works for other roots (cube roots, say), though it is rare you need
to take other types of roots on the GMAT.

Absolute Value
 
|x|  x 
=
|y|  y 
is always true.

4.2 Fractions Within Fractions

Often a fraction will contain, in its numerator and denominator, a sum or sub-
traction of two fractions. For example, you might see
1 3
+
6 5
5 2
−
6 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 26
Most test takers, seeing this, will get common denominators in both the nu-
merator and denominator, and subtract the resulting fractions, then divide one
fraction by another to finally arrive at an answer. That’s perfectly correct math-
ematically, but there is a faster way. Notice that our denominators are 6 and 5,
30
which are both factors of 30. So if we just multiply the entire fraction by ,
30
all of the denominators will cancel immediately, and since we’re multiplying by
1, we are not changing the overall value of the fraction:
1 3   1 3 
6 + 5 30 6 + 5
5 2 = 5 2
6 − 5 6 − 5
30
5 + 18
=
25 − 12
23
=
13
Above we used the Least Common Multiple, 30, of all of the denomina-
tors. We can use a similar technique when our denominators are algebraic. For
example, with this fraction
2 3
x + y
1 2
x − y

if we just multiply the entire numerator and denominator by xy, all of the
denominators will cancel:
  2 3
!
xy x + y 2y + 3x
1 2 =
xy x − y
y − 2x

and the simplification is completed in a single step.

4.3 Comparing Fractions

You may need to compare two or more fractions to determine which is larger.
There are several ways to do this – the method that is most convenient depends
on the specific fractions you need to compare. The two most common methods
are the following:

• Convert each fraction to a decimal. If you have a calculator, this is often

the easiest method. If you don’t have a calculator, this is almost never a
good method. The only time this would be the best option on the GMAT
is when the decimal equivalents of the fractions are familiar or are trivially
easy to find.
• Get a common denominator. Then the fraction with the larger numerator
has the larger value. This is the ‘textbook’ pen-and-paper method, and is
often convenient, but can sometimes be awkward. Note that there is no

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 27
 reason to actually compute the value of the common denominator. If, say,
you need to compare these fractions:
5 11
and
31 67
you only need to work out that

5 (5)(67) 335
= =
31 (31)(67) (31)(67)

and that
11 (11)(31) 361
= =
67 (67)(31) (31)(67)
11
to see that 67 is larger.

• Some books teach what they may describe as a ‘trick’ to compare fractions
– these books will tell you to multiply the numerator of each fraction by
the denominator of the other. If you have never seen this ‘trick’ before,
then just ignore this comment (there’s no reason to know it) but if you
have, notice that all you are doing when you use this ‘trick’ is finding a
common denominator, as we did above. You just aren’t bothering to write
the denominator down (which can make it confusing to remember which
fraction is larger after you do the multiplications). So it really is not a
‘trick’ at all; it’s identical to what we did above.

There are other techniques that are sometimes much easier to use than the
standard ones listed above. For example:

• It is sometimes more convenient to find a common numerator rather than

a common denominator. Here we use the fact that if our fractions are
positive and have the same numerator, the fraction with the smaller de-
nominator has the larger overall value, so, for example:
3 3
>
31 35
is true. If you needed to compare, say, these fractions:
3 6
and
37 73
notice that finding a common denominator is at least slightly complicated,
computationally. But instead we can just get a numerator of 6 in both
fractions, by multiplying the first fraction by 2 on the top and bottom:
3 6
=
37 74

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 28
 Now both fractions have the same numerator, 6, and since the denominator
6
74 is larger than the denominator 73, it must be that is smaller than
74
6
, so
73
3 6
<
37 73
• Particularly when fractions are very close in value to simple fractions like
1 1
or , it can be easiest just to compare each fraction with these simpler
2 3
fractions. So for example, if you need to decide which of these is larger:
11 103
or
34 299
1
we can see that each fraction is not too far from , so we can try comparing
3
1
each to . And we find:
3
11 11 1
< =
34 33 3
whereas
103 100 1
> =
299 300 3
103 100
so is larger (notice that it must be larger than because it has
299 300
both a larger numerator and a smaller denominator).
• One of the most useful techniques to compare fractions when the numera-
tors and denominators are close in value is described in my Word Problems
book, using ratio principles. Since this is an Algebra book, I’ll also de-
scribe it here using algebra, though the ratio explanation may be clearer,
conceptually, so it might be useful to compare the two explanations. Using
letters, if a, b, m and n are all positive (none of this is true if some of the
letters may be negative), and if
m a
<
n b
then it will be true that
m m+a a
< <
n n+b b
and conversely, if
m a
>
n b
then it will be true that
m m+a a
> >
n n+b b

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 29
 It is probably easiest to understand this by looking at the numerical exam-
ples below, but the point is this: if everything is positive, then if you start
with a fraction, and then add a to the numerator and b to the denomina-
a
tor, the overall value of the fraction always moves towards the value of .
b
So for example, if you have these two fractions:
3 4
and
13 15
to go from the first fraction to the second, we are adding 1 to the numerator
and 2 to the denominator. That will always make the overall value of the
1 3 1
fraction move towards . Since the value of is less than , this will
2 13 2
make the overall value of the fraction increase, so
3 4
<
13 15
must be true. In fact, we could keep adding 1 and 2 to the numerator and
denominator respectively, and then the value of each new fraction will get
1
closer and closer to without ever quite getting there:
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
< < < < < < ...
13 15 17 19 21 23
5
Suppose instead we have a different fraction, say . Now suppose we
14
add 1 to the numerator and 3 to the denominator, so we are comparing:
5 6
and
14 17
By adding 1 to the numerator and 3 to the denominator, the overall value
1
of the fraction will move towards . But in this case, that will decrease
3
5 1
the value of the fraction, because > . So here
14 3
5 6
>
14 17
and if we were to keep adding 1 to the numerator and 3 to the denominator,
1
the resulting fractions would get closer and closer to , without ever quite
3
getting there:
5 6 7 8 9
> > > > > ...
14 17 20 23 26
This method is especially convenient to use when you need to compare
fractions that have numerators and denominators that are very close in
value. If that’s not the situation, one of the other techniques listed above
is likely to be more convenient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 30
 • When two fractions are negative, and you need to compare them, it may
be less confusing to make the fractions positive first, compare them as if
they were positive numbers, and then to remember that any inequality
that is true for two positive numbers will be reversed if you make both
numbers negative. So if I need to compare, say
−1 −1
and
13 15
then I will normally make them positive, and notice that
1 1
>
13 15
and then recall that when I make both fractions negative, the inequality
becomes reversed:
−1 −1
<
13 15
−1
The fraction is larger because it is closer to zero. There’s no need
15
to do this if you’re comfortable comparing negative fractions directly, but
most people are not, and make many more errors when comparing nega-
tive fractions than when comparing positive ones, so it can be useful to
translate things to a positive situation, then back to a negative one.

Sample Question 5. Which of the following is largest?

2
A) 2 2
(3 )(7 )
5
B) 3 2
(3 )(7 )
13
C) 2 3
(3 )(7 )
37
D) 3 3
(3 )(7 )
121
E) 4 3
(3 )(7 )
Solution 5. Here we can get a common denominator of (34 )(73 ) for each frac-

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 31
tion:
  2 
2 2 (3 )(7) 126
= = 4 3
(32 )(72 ) (32 )(72 ) (32 )(7) (3 )(7 )
  
5 5 (3)(7) 105
= = 4 3
(33 )(72 ) (33 )(72 ) (3)(7) (3 )(7 )
  2
13 13 3 117
= = 4 3
(32 )(73 ) (32 )(73 ) 32 (3 )(7 )
  
37 37 3 111
= = 4 3
(33 )(73 ) (33 )(73 ) 3 (3 )(7 )
121 100
= 4 3
(34 )(73 ) (3 )(7 )

so the answer is A.
Sample Question 6. Which of the following is largest?
−8
A)
31
−9
B)
34
−10
C)
37
−11
D)
40
−12
E)
43
Solution 6. It will be easier to compare positive values, and if we make every
fraction positive, we will want instead to know which fraction is smallest (be-
cause that fraction will become largest if made negative). Making the answers
8 9
positive, notice that when we go from answer A, , to answer B, , we are
31 34
adding 1 to the numerator and 3 to the denominator. When we do this, the
1 8 1
overall value of the fraction will get closer to . Since is less than (it
3 31 3
8 1
is very close in value to = ), when we add 1 to its numerator and 3 to
32 4
its denominator, the overall value of the fraction will get bigger. But the same
will be true for each subsequent fraction, since as we progress through the five
answer choices, we increase the numerator by 1 and the denominator by 3 each
time. So
8 9 10 11 12
< < < <
31 34 37 40 43
and thus
−8 −9 −10 −11 −12
> > > >
31 34 37 40 43
and the answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 32
4.4 Labeling Digits
In the number
7, 654.32
then the digits are labeled as follows:
• 7 is the thousands digit
• 6 is the hundreds digit

• 5 is the tens digit

• 4 is the units (or ones) digit
• 3 is the tenths digit

• 2 is the hundredths digit

Questions that ask about digits are typically one of three types. Some are
about units digits of positive integers, which are discussed in my Number Theory
book. Some test the fact that when you multiply a number by, say, 10, every
digit moves over one position to the left. So if you take, say, the three-digit
number ABC, and multiply it by 10, you will get a four-digit number, ABC0,
where A, the previous hundreds digit, has become the thousands digit, where
B, the previous tens digit, has become the hundreds digit, and where C, the
previous units digit, has become the tens digit. Similarly, if we multiply by 100,
digits move two positions to the left, or if we divide by 100, digits move two
positions to the right. The below is a standard example question testing this:

Sample Question 7. If n is a positive integer greater than 1000, what is the

hundreds digit of n?
n
1) The tenths digit of is 7.
1000
n
2) The hundredths digit of is 5.
1000
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 7. When we divide n by 10, the hundreds digit becomes the tens
digit, so when we divide by 100, it becomes the units digit, and when we divide
by 1000, it becomes the tenths digit. So the hundreds digit of n is the same as
n
the tenths digit of , and Statement 1 is sufficient, while Statement 2 is not.
1000
The answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 33
 Some questions provide an addition, subtraction or multiplication question,
where the individual digits of the numbers involved are provided. Often the best
method for such questions is inspection – try to arrive at any simple conclusions
you can, but plug in numbers as you need to. The following example is typical:
Sample Question 8. If A, B, C and D are nonzero digits in the correctly worked
addition problem below, what is the value of A + B + C + D?

AAA
+BBB
CDDC

A) 11
B) 14
C) 17
D) 20
E) 23
Solution 8. Here we are adding two three-digit numbers, and arriving at a
four-digit number. Since three digit numbers are less than 1000, the sum of
two of them must be less than 2000, so the thousands digit of the sum can only
be equal to 1. So we know C = 1. Now we also know, looking at the units
digit column, that A + B is equal to something ending in 1. They can’t add
to exactly 1, because that would mean they were 0 and 1, and the digits are
nonzero. Nor can they add to 21 (or something greater than 21) because they
are single digit numbers, so they can’t sum to anything larger than 18. So they
must sum to 11. And if A + B = 11, we can see, either by inventing any two
suitable numbers for A and B, or seeing that we’ll carry a 1 to the tens column
when we do the sum, that D = 2. So A + B + C + D = 11 + 1 + 2 = 14.
There is a more formal way to approach these types of questions, though it
often is not necessary to use it. Notice if you write, say, a two-digit number x
as AB, where A is the tens digit and B is the units digit, then this means that
x is equal to 10A + B. In this way, we can express a number algebraically if
we are provided with its digits. Doing this can be a fallback strategy if simple
inspection is not yielding a solution.

Sample Question 9. If A, B and C are nonzero digits in the three-digit numbers

ABC and CBA, and A > C, what is the value of ABC − CBA?
1) A − C = 6
2) B = 4
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 34
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 9. We could test values here, but we can also use the method outlined
above. If ABC and CBA are three-digit numbers, then

ABC = 100A + 10B + C

and
CBA = 100C + 10B + A
So the question is asking us to find

ABC − CBA = 100A + 10B + C − (100C + 10B + A)

= 100A + 10B + C − 100C − 10B − A
= 100(A − C) − (A − C)
= 99(A − C)

So with the value of A − C, we can answer the question, and Statement 1 is

sufficient, while Statement 2 is not. The answer is A.
We can do the same thing in the more complicated situation where you see
a decimal number with labeled digits (this situation is very rare on the GMAT).
If, say, A, B, C, D and E are digits in the number

y = ABC.DE

then we would have

y = A(102 ) + B(101 ) + C(100 ) + D(10−1 ) + E(10−2 )

D E
= 100A + 10B + C + +
10 100

4.5 Decimals and Arithmetic

When working with decimals, it is often easiest to rewrite them as fractions,
especially if you need to do any multiplication or division. Decimals are great
if you have a calculator, but decimals are often very awkward if you only have
pen and paper, as you do on the GMAT. Fractions, on the other hand, are often
easy to deal with, if you know the basic rules for multiplying and dividing them.
For example:
1.125
= ?
0.625
would be time consuming if you work with decimals and opted to do a long
division. But if you know how to convert these decimals into fractions, the
division can be completed quickly and painlessly:
9
8 9 8 9
5 = × = = 1.8
8
8 5 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 35
Sample Question 10. Which of the following is largest?
3
A)
0.09
4
B)
0.016
5
C)
0.025
7
D)
0.049
10
E)
0.1
Solution 10.
3 3 3 × 102 102 103
= 32

= 2
= =
0.09 102
3 3 30
4 4 4 × 103 103
= 42

= =
0.016 103
42 4
5 5 5 × 103 103
= 52

= =
0.025 103
52 5
7 7 7 × 103 103
= 72

= 2
=
0.049 103
7 7
10 10 10 × 10 103
= 1
= =
0.1 10
1 10
and since we now have common numerators in each fraction, the fraction with
the smallest denominator will have the largest overall value. So answer B is
largest.
Sample Question 11. If
0.15
x=
0.3
0.015
y=
3
0.0015
z=
0.03
1 1 1
then + + is equal to
x y z
111
A)
200
3
B)
2
C) 6
D) 42
E) 222

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 36
Solution 11. In each fraction, we can multiply the numerator and denominator
by a power of 10 in order to eliminate the decimal point, so we can arrive at
the simpler situation where we are dividing whole numbers:
0.15 15 1
x= = =
0.3 30 2
0.015 15 1
y= = =
3 3000 200
0.0015 15 1
z= = =
0.03 300 20
1 1 1
so = 2, = 200 and = 20 and the sum of these is equal to 2 + 200 + 20 =
x y z
222.

4.6 Rounding
To round a number off to, say, the nearest tenth, then you want to find the
number with no digits beyond the tenths digit which is closest to your original
number. So, to round off 3.853 to the nearest tenth, the answer would be 3.9,
because 3.853 is closer to 3.9 than it is to 3.8 (or to any other number with only
one digit after the decimal). On the other hand, 3.848 would be rounded to 3.8.
When you round in this way, there is only one situation where it is unclear
what to do – when the number you need to round off is precisely halfway between
two options. So, if we need to round off 6.35 to the nearest tenth, it is unclear
whether to round to 6.3 or to 6.4. What mathematicians do in practice is simply
a matter of convention, and in fact the conventions are different in different parts
of the world. Some books will teach you to round one way in this situation, while
other books will teach a different way. For GMAT purposes, it won’t matter
what you do here – they cannot make this a ‘trap’ in a question, because even
professional mathematicians will disagree about what the right answer is. So
there is no reason to worry about what to do in that situation, since it will never
be relevant on the GMAT.
Sample Question 12. When 5713 + a is rounded to the nearest hundred, the
result is larger than the sum obtained when 5713 is rounded to the nearest hundred
and is then added to what is obtained when a is rounded to the nearest hundred.
What could be the value of a?
A) 181
B) 272
C) 363
D) 454
E) 545
Solution 12. Looking at the answer choices, notice that when we calculate
5713 + a, the tens and units digits of the result will always be between 50 and
99. So when we round 5713 + a to the nearest hundred, we will always round
up, and the result will always be larger than 5713 + a.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 37
When instead we round 5713 to the nearest hundred, to get 5700, and round
a to the nearest hundred, then add the two resulting numbers, it is only when
we round answer E to the nearest hundred, that both 5713 and 545 will get
smaller. So in this case, the sum will be less than 5713 + a. So E must be
correct. Testing each answer choice would also be a good approach here.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 38
5 Exponents
If we raise a number to a positive integer exponent n, then that is just a short-
hand way to express that we are multiplying that number by itself n times.
So

x1 = x
x2 = (x)(x)
x3 = (x)(x)(x)

and so on.
There are three types of exponent that are not positive integers that you
often see on the GMAT:

• For the exponent zero: if you raise anything to the power zero, the result
is always equal to 1, so x0 = 1 for all x (technically this is not true if
x = 0, but that is an exception you will never need to worry about on the
test).
• If an exponent is negative: we can make the exponent positive if we take
the reciprocal of the base:
1
x−a = a
x
assuming x is nonzero (which will always be true on the test). Note that
if a fraction is raised to a negative power, we can just take the fraction’s
reciprocal and make the exponent positive:
 a −3  b 3
=
b a

• If an exponent is a fraction: then we are taking a root of the base. When

the numerator is 1, the denominator of the fraction tells us what root we
1
are taking, so the exponent means the 2nd root, or square root, the
2
1
exponent means the 3rd root or cube root, and so on:
3
1 √
x2 = x

When the numerator is not 1, we can use the ‘tower of powers’ rule (ex-
plained fully in the section on ‘Exponent Rules’ below), to split the power
into two parts, so if x is positive:
3 1 √
x 2 = (x3 ) 2 = x3

or equivalently √
3 1
x 2 = (x 2 )3 = ( x)3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 39
Sample Question 13.
!−1
1 −2


2
=
1 −1

−2
+ 14


4

1
A)
5
1
B)
4
4
C)
5
5
D)
4
E) 5
Solution 13.
!−1
1 −2 −1


22

2
=
1 −1

−2
+ 41 4 + 42


4
 −1
4
=
20
 −1
1
=
5
=5

5.1 Exponent Rules

There are four rules that allow us to combine or break apart expressions with
exponents. Notice that these rules only apply when we are multiplying or di-
viding, or raising things with exponents to other exponents. They do not apply
when we are adding or subtracting – when we add or subtract things with ex-
ponents we normally need to factor, which is discussed later.

The Four Exponent Rules:

1
(ax )(ay ) = ax+y

That is, when you have the same base and you are multiplying two things
with exponents, you can add the powers and leave the base unchanged.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 40
 Note that we can do this with any exponents at all, negatives or positives,
fractions or integers. A few examples of this rule in practice:

(37 )(3−6 ) = 37−6 = 31 = 3

(x5 )(x11 ) = x5+11 = x16
1 1 1 1 1 √
(16 4 )(16 4 ) = 16 4 + 4 = 16 2 = 16 = 4
2 5 7
(x + 5) (x + 5) = (x + 5)

2
xa
= xa−b
xb
That is, when we have the same base and are dividing, we can subtract
the exponents, leaving the base unchanged. A few examples of how this
rule may be applied in practice:

29 1 1
= 29−11 = 2−2 = 2 =
211 2 4
x11
= x11−4 = x7
x4
1
27 2 1 1 1 √
2 − 6 = 27 3 =
3
1 = 27 27 = 3
27 6
(x − 5)7
= (x − 5)7−6 = (x − 5)1 = x − 5
(x − 5)6

3
ax bx = (ab)x
This rule might look similar to the first rule, but notice it is the opposite
situation: here we have the same exponent and different bases, and we are
multiplying. We then can multiply the bases first, and raise them to that
exponent. Some examples of using this rule in practice:

(53 )(63 ) = (5 × 6)3 = (30)3 = 27000

(a2 )(b2 ) = (ab)2
1 1 1 1 √
(8 2 )(18 2 ) = (8 × 18) 2 = 144 2 = 144 = 12

The last example above is actually one of the√ square

√ root
√ rules that we
will encounter again later: it just says that 8 × 18 = 8 × 18.
4
(xa )b = xab

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 41
 This is sometimes called the ‘tower of powers’ rule: when you raise an
expression with a power to another power, you can multiply the exponents,
leaving the base alone. There are some exceptions to this rule, when x is
negative and b is a fraction, but those exceptions are only ever important
in one type of GMAT√ question – in rare absolute value questions. It turns
1
out that (a2 ) 2 = a2 , which is equal to |a|, and not, as you might guess
from the ‘tower of powers’ rule, simply to a. That exception to the ‘tower
of powers’ rule is sometimes tested on the GMAT, so is discussed in detail
in the chapter on Absolute Value. But in any other circumstance, you can
apply this rule without worrying about exceptions.
There is one potentially confusing situation that you can occasionally en-
counter in a GMAT question. If you see the expression

(25 )3

then by the fourth rule above, that is equal to 215 . But if you see this expression
3
2(5 )

then because we must evaluate the expression in brackets first, this is equal to
2125 . And if you see this expression, with no brackets:
3
25

the convention in math is that we work from the ‘top down’. So this is equal
3
to 2(5 ) , and so is also equal to 2125 ; you cannot use the ‘tower of powers’ rule
here. That said, it is uncommon that you would see an expression like the one
above, with no brackets and containing only numbers, on the GMAT. The only
situation you are at all likely to encounter is one where the exponent contains
an unknown: 2
2x
Be aware that you cannot use the ‘tower of powers’ rule here, so you cannot
rewrite this as 22x .
Sample Question 14. If n 6= −2, for how many integer values of n is the
equation
2
(n + 2)n = (n + 2)2n
true?
A) none
B) one
C) two
D) three
E) infinitely many

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 42
Solution 14. The equation in the question could be true in a variety of cir-
cumstances. We have the same base, so the left and right sides will certainly be
equal if the exponents are equal. That is, if

n2 = 2n
n2 − 2n = 0
(n)(n − 2) = 0

or if n = 0 or n = 2, the equation will be true. But the equation can potentially

also be true if the exponents are different in value, if our base is −1, 0 or 1. We
can see that if n = −3, so the base is equal to −1, we have an odd exponent
on the left side and an even exponent on the right, so the left side will be
negative and right side will be positive, and thus they will not be equal. From
the condition n 6= −2, we can see that the base cannot be 0. But the base can
be equal to 1 if n = −1, in which case the equation is also true. So there are
three possible values of n, namely −1, 0 and 2.
As with almost every rule in math, we use the four exponent rules above
‘backwards’ just as often as ‘forwards’. That is, while these rules are normally
taught as a way to combine two things (e.g. using the first rule we can write
(24 )(23 ) = 27 ) very often in math we are interested in taking things apart. This
is exactly what we are doing any time we are factoring, which is one of the most
useful techniques in all of algebra. So because the first rule above is true, for
example, starting from 27 , we can rewrite it in any number of ways:

27 = (23 )(24 )
27 = (22 )(25 )
27 = (21 )(26 )
27 = (2−1 )(28 )

and so on. Of course most of these ways will not be useful in a given question,
but often one of them is. Or to give a different example, rule number 3 above
was taught as a way to combine two expressions we were multiplying that had
the same exponent:
(53 )(73 ) = (5 × 7)3 = 353
But just as often, we have a product in brackets, with an exponent outside the
brackets, and we use this rule in the opposite direction, as a way to get rid of
the brackets:
(5x)3 = (53 )(x3 ) = 125x3
Sample Question 15. If 2n = 5, then 8n−1 is equal to
15
A)
8
25
B)
8

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 43
 75
C)
8
125
D)
8
E) 124
Solution 15.

8n−1 = (8n )(8−1 )

= (23 )n (8−1 )
= (2n )3 (8−1 )
53
=
8
125
=
8

Sample Question 16. If

x = (−0.001)−3
y = (−0.01)−4
z = (−0.1)−5

which of the following is true?

A) x < y < z
B) x < z < y
C) y < x < z
D) z < y < x
E) z < x < y

Solution 16.
−3
−3 −1
x = (−0.001) = = (−103 )3 = −109
103
 −4
−1
y = (−0.01)−4 = = (−102 )4 = 108
102
 −5
−5 −1
z = (−0.1) = = −105
10

from which x < z < y.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 44
6 Roots
Roots are, in a certain sense, the reverse of positive integer exponents. If we
want to know, for example, the cube root, or 3rd root, of 125, we want to know
“which number, when cubed (raised to the exponent 3) will give us 125?” So
the cube root of 125 is 5.
There are two ways to write a cube root. As discussed in the chapter on
Exponents, we can use a fractional exponent to write the cube root of 125:
1
125 3 = 5

or we can use the square root symbol with a small ‘3’ to indicate that we are
taking a 3rd root: √
3
125 = 5
On the GMAT, you will only very rarely encounter 4th or higher roots, so it
is extremely rare that you would see something like
√5
32

on the test. On the rare occasions when I have seen a root that is not a square
or cube root, a fractional exponent has been used, so you will more likely see
this:
1
32 5
though such situations are still very rare.
The most common kind of root on the GMAT by far is the square root, and
this is the only root for which it is worthwhile learning algebraic rules. For
higher roots, you can change the root to a fractional exponent (if necessary)
and then you can use all of the familiar exponent rules. With square roots (or
any other even root), there is a technicality about negative numbers. If I were
to say, in words “a is a square root of 9”, then that would mean that a2 = 9.
But then there are two possible values of a, 3 and −3. But when you see square
roots on the GMAT, you almost always see this notation:
√
9

The symbol over the 9, sometimes called the square root symbol or radical
symbol, always means the positive square root only if it appears over a positive
number. So √
9=3
√
is true, and 9 is never equal to −3, by the definition of the √ root symbol.
Technically, the square root of zero is zero, so more precisely, x is the non-
negative square root of x and this is always true:
√
x≥0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 45
Square roots are almost always written using the square root symbol on the
GMAT, but if you did see the exponent 12 , then you can replace that exponent
with a square root symbol if you like:
1 √
x2 = x
Notice that, from the definition of a square root, it makes no sense to take
the square root of a negative number, since we can never square a real number
and get a negative answer. If you have studied advanced mathematics, you may
have encountered what are called ‘imaginary numbers’ or ‘complex numbers’.
When using those types of numbers, you can take square roots of negatives,
but on the GMAT all numbers are real numbers. So if you’ve learned anything
about imaginary or complex numbers, forget about them when solving GMAT
questions.
There is an important distinction between even roots (square roots, for ex-
ample) and odd roots (cube roots, for example). √We can never take an even
root of a negative number, and when we evaluate x, the answer can never be
negative. But we can take an odd root of a negative number, and when we do
take an odd root, the answer can be negative. For example
√
3
−64 = −4
because (−4)3 = −64.
One fact about square roots that is only rarely tested, and only in high
level questions: the square root of any positive integer is either an integer or
an irrational number, or in other words, a number which cannot be written as
a
√ fraction with integers in the numerator
√ and denominator. So for example,
9 = 3, which is an integer, but 2 is not an integer, so it must be an “irra-
p
tional number”, which means it cannot be written as a fraction , where p and
q
q are integers.

Sample√Question 17. If a and b are integers, what is the value of a?

1) a = b 2
2) 2a − 3b = 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 17. If we divide by b on both sides in Statement 1, we get the equation
a √
= 2
b
√ a
But 2 is an irrational number, so it is impossible to write it as a fraction if
b
a and b are both integers. So the only way the equation in Statement 1 could

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 46
be true is if a = b = 0 (since that’s the only situation where we wouldn’t have
been allowed to divide by b on both sides of the equation in Statement 1). Since
we know the value of a, Statement 1 is sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient, since we might have a = b = 0, or we might have
a = 3 and b = 2, among other possibilities.
The answer is A.

6.1 The Square Root Rules

There are three rules that allow us to combine roots when we are multiplying,
dividing, or raising roots to powers. We almost always use these rules with
square roots – they also will work for, say, cube roots (provided every root is
a cube root), but that is almost never important on the GMAT. If a and b are
positive:
1 √ √ √
a b = ab
(when multiplying roots, you can multiply, then take the root)
2 √ r
a a
√ =
b b
(when dividing roots, you can divide, then take the root)
3 √ √
( a)x = ax
(when raising a root to a power, you can move the power under the root)
Notice that these rules just come from the exponent rules explained in the
previous chapter, where we are using the exponent 12 . √ √
There is no rule for adding or subtracting roots. The expression x + y is
√ √ √
not generally equal to x + y, for example. √ If you
√ see something like 3 + √2,
this cannot be simplified. The expression 3 + 2 is certainly not equal to 5.
Sample Question 18. If x and y are positive,
√ √
31
x y
√
16 =
xy

√
A) 6 xy
√
B) 3 xy
p
C) 3 (xy)2
√
D) xy
E) xy

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 47
Solution 18.
√ √
31 √ 1
x y ( xy) 3
√
61 = (√xy) 16
xy
√ 1 1
= ( xy) 3 − 6
√ 1
= ( xy) 6
√
= 6 xy

It is often easier to work with fractions, rather than decimals, if you see
square roots and decimal numbers, since then you can take the square root of
the numerator and denominator separately:

Sample Question 19. If

√  √ 
0.000125 + 0.005 0.25x − 0.5 = 0.01

what is the value of x?

A) 0.0125
B) 0.125
C) 0.25
D) 1.25
E) 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 48
Solution 19.
√  √  1
0.000125 + 0.005 0.25x − 0.5 =
100
r  r 
1.25 1 x 1
(100) + − =1
10, 000 200 4 2
√ ! √ 
1.25 1 x 1
(100) √ + √ − =1
10, 000 200 4 2
√ ! √ 
1.25 1 x 1
(100) + − =1
100 200 2 2
r ! √ 
5 1 x−1
+ =1
4 2 2
√ ! √ 
5+1 x−1
=1
2 2
√  √

5+1 x−1 =4
√  √
√
5+1 x − 5−1=4
√
√ 5+ 5
x= √
5+1
√
√

√ 5 5+1
x= √
5+1
√ √
x= 5
x=5

√
In the third-last line above, I factored 5 from the numerator. You can
instead use the ‘rationalizing denominator’ technique explained in section 6.3
below to complete the solution from that point.

6.2 Simplifying Roots

√ √ √
We very often use the first square root rule, a b = ab, to simplify roots.
Whenever a whole number under a square root is divisible by a perfect √square
greater than 1, that perfect square must be divided out. For example, 12 is
not
√ simplified, because 4, a perfect square, is a factor of 12. We must rewrite
12 as follows: √ √ √ √
12 = 4 3 = 2 3
and this is now fully simplified, because no perfect square besides 1 is a factor
of 3.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 49
 It is advantageous to factor out the largest possible perfect square, since that
will allow√you to complete this simplification in one step. So if you needed to
simplify 72, if you notice you can divide 72 by 36, you can simplify completely:
√ √ √ √
72 = 36 2 = 6 2

But if you did not notice that you could factor the 36 immediately, you can still
complete the simplification in two steps. For example, you might notice that 72
is divisible by 9, so √ √ √ √
72 = 9 8 = 3 8
√
But you would then want to ask if 3 8 was completely simplified. And it is
not, because we can divide 8 by 4 = 22 , so we need to do a further step:
√ √ √ √ √ √
3 8=3 4×2=3 4× 2=3×2× 2=6 2

Simplifying roots in this way is required, in the same way that reducing frac-
tions is required. There are many reasons why√this simplification is mandatory.
For one, you might solve a question and get √ 72 as your answer. That might
be the correct answer,
√ but you will never see “ 72” as an answer choice. You
will always see “6 2” instead, so you must know how to simplify roots, or else
you might solve a question properly and still not find your answer among the
choices. But this simplification of roots is also often explicitly tested in arith-
metic questions. And because, as the question below illustrates, simplifying
roots in this way can let you do further things, it is almost always a good idea
to simplify roots immediately, if a simplification is possible.
Sample Question 20.
√ √ !2
125 + 80
√ √ =
75 + 48
205
A)
123
9
B)
7
25
C)
16
5
D)
3
3
E)
2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 50
Solution 20. We can simplify each root:
√ √ !2 √ √ √ √ !2
125 + 80 ( 25)( 5) + ( 16)( 5)
√ √ = √ √ √ √
75 + 48 ( 25)( 3) + ( 16)( 3)
√ √ !2
5 5+4 5
= √ √
5 3+4 3
√ !2
9 5
= √
9 3
√ !2
5
= √
3
5
=
3

6.3 Rationalizing Denominators and Mandatory Simplifi-

cations
There are three simplifications that are always required in GMAT-level math.
Two have already been discussed:
12
• You must reduce fractions: is not simplified, since it can be reduced
20
3
to
5
√
• You must factor perfect squares from square
√ roots: 20 is not simplified,
since we can factor 4 from 20, to get 2 5
There is a third simplification you must always perform in GMAT questions:
you can never write a square root in the denominator of a fraction (it is perfectly
fine and often unavoidable to write a square root in a numerator, however). So
whenever you see a square root in a denominator, you will need to rewrite the
fraction. When the denominator only contains a simple root, we can multiply
6
the numerator and denominator by that root, so to simplify the fraction √ we
3
can do as follows:
√
6 6 3
√ =√ ×√
3 3 3
√
6 3
=
3
√
=2 3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 51
 √
3
Since in the first step we multiplied by √ , which is equal to 1, we did not
3
change the overall value of the fraction. Note that you certainly cannot square
the numerator and denominator to eliminate the root, because if you square
the numerator and denominator, you will change the overall value of the frac-
tion (as you can see immediately by, for example, squaring the numerator and
1
denominator of the fraction ).
2
Often, however, the denominator will contain a sum or subtraction involving
one or two square roots. We then need to use the “difference of squares” to
eliminate the square root or roots. The difference of squares pattern is discussed
in detail in the later section about quadratic factoring, and if the difference of
squares factorization is unfamiliar, you should skip this section for now, and
return to it after reviewing the difference of squares.
From the difference of squares pattern,
a2 − b2 = (a + b)(a − b)
is
√ always true.
√ So √ because of the pattern above, if we multiply, for example,
√
x + y by x − y, the square roots will ‘disappear’:
√ √ √ √ √ √
( x + y)( x − y) = ( x)2 − ( y)2 = x − y
√ √
So if we see a fraction with a denominator of x + y, then we will be able to
eliminate the roots in the denominator if we multiply the entire fraction by
√ √
x− y
√ √
x− y
√ √ √ √
The expressions x− y and x+ y are sometimes called conjugates in math,
which means they are identical except one is a sum, the other a subtraction. If
we see any denominator which contains a square root in a sum or a subtraction,
we can get rid of the root by multiplying the top and bottom of the fraction by
the conjugate of the denominator.
So for example, if we saw this fraction
1
√ √
3− 2
then because there is a square root in the√denominator,
√ we absolutely must
rewrite the fraction. We can multiply by 3 + 2 in the numerator and de-
nominator to eliminate the square roots in the denominator:
  √ √ !
1 1 3+ 2
√ √ = √ √ √ √
3− 2 3− 2 3+ 2
√ √
3+ 2
=
3−2
√ √
= 3+ 2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 52
 From the example above, it may be clear why this simplification is required.
Notice that the answer above is much simpler than the fraction we began with
– for one thing, it does not contain a fraction at all, and for another, it would
be much easier to estimate its value.
Sample Question 21. If
1
x= √
3− 7
1
y= √
4 − 14
1
z= √
5 − 23
which of the following is true?
A) x < y < z
B) x < z < y
C) y < x < z
D) z < y < x
E) z < x < y
Solution 21.
 √ !
 √ √
13+ 7 3+ 7 3+ 7
x= √ √ = 2 =
3− 7
3+ 7 3 −7 2
  √ ! √ √
1 4 + 14 4 + 14 4 + 14
y= √ √ = 2 =
4 − 14 4 + 14 4 − 14 2
  √ ! √ √
1 5 + 23 5 + 23 5 + 23
z= √ √ = 2 =
5 − 23 5 + 23 5 − 23 2

and since each of these fractions has the same denominator, x is smallest, since it
has the smallest numerator, and z is largest, since it has the largest numerator,
so x < y < z.

Sample Question 22.

1 1 1 1
√ √ −√ √ +√ √ −√ √ =
9− 7 7− 5 5− 3 3− 1

1
A)
2
B) 1
C) 2 √
D) 2 2√ √ √
E) 4 − 7 + 5 − 3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 53
Solution 22. We can rationalize each denominator using the difference of
squares pattern:
1 1 1 1
√ √ −√ √ +√ √ −√ √
9− 7 7− 5 5− 3 3− 1
  √ √ !   √ √ !
1 9+ 7 1 7+ 5
= √ √ √ √ − √ √ √ √
9− 7 9+ 7 7− 5 7+ 5
  √ √ !   √ √ !
1 5+ 3 1 3+ 1
+ √ √ √ √ − √ √ √ √
5− 3 5+ 3 3− 1 3+ 1
√ √ √ √ ! √ √ √ √ !
9+ 7 7+ 5 5+ 3 3+ 1
= − + −
2 2 2 2
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
9+ 7− 7− 5+ 5+ 3− 3− 1
=
√ √ 2
9− 1
=
2
3−1
=
2
=1

The answer is B.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 54
7 Factorials
The exclamation mark symbol in mathematics represents what is called a fac-
torial. It is used only with positive integers on the GMAT, and n! is just an
abbreviated way of writing a certain product – the product of all the integers
from 1 up to n. So, for example,

4! = (4)(3)(2)(1)

and more generally,

n! = (n)(n − 1)(n − 2) . . . (3)(2)(1)

Technically, 0! is defined to be equal to 1, though that is not a technicality I

have ever seen tested in a GMAT question.
Factorials show up most often in Counting and Probability questions, and in
Number Theory questions. If you encounter an arithmetic or algebraic question
involving factorials, the most important thing to recognize is that any larger
factorial contains every smaller one. So for example, if we write out 7! in full,
we find that it contains 6!, 5!, 4! and so on:

7! = (7)(6)(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)
= (7)(6!)
= (7)(6)(5!)
= (7)(6)(5)(4!)

Because of this, if we have a fraction with a factorial in the numerator and

denominator, we can always quickly cancel:
101! (101)(100)(99!)
= = (101)(100) = 10100
99! 99!
Notice that this extends to algebraic situations. Say x is a positive integer, and
suppose in a question you see the factorial

(x + 2)!

Notice that this is just the product of (x + 2), (x + 1), x, and so on, down to 1.
So
(x + 2)! = (x + 2)(x + 1)(x)(x − 1) . . . (2)(1)
Because of this, if you see something like the fraction below, you could cancel:
(x + 2)! (x + 2)(x + 1)(x!)
= = (x + 2)(x + 1)
x! x!
Further, if we add or subtract two factorials, we can factor out the smaller of
the two factorials:

21! − 20! = (21)(20!) − 20! = (20!)(21 − 1) = (20)(20!)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 55
Sample Question 23.
10! 9!
− =
9! + 9! 8! + 8! + 8!

A) 2
B) 8
C) 11
D) 57
E) 114
Solution 23.
10! 9! (10)(9!) (9)(8!)
− = −
9! + 9! 8! + 8! + 8! (2)(9!) (3)(8!)
10 9
= −
2 3
=5−3
=2

Sample Question 24.

(0.1)(0.09)(0.08)(0.07)(0.06)(0.05)(0.04)(0.03)(0.02)(0.01) =

10!
A)
102
10!
B)
1010
10!
C)
1019
9!
D)
1017
9!
E)
1019

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 56
Solution 24.

(0.1)(0.09)(0.08)(0.07)(0.06)(0.05)(0.04)(0.03)(0.02)(0.01)
     
10 9 2 1
= ...
100 100 100 100
10!
=
10010
10!
=
(102 )10
10!
= 20
10
(10)(9!)
=
(10)(1019 )
9!
= 19
10
The answer is E.
Sample Question 25. Is x < 4545 ?
1) x < 45!
67!
2) x <
22!
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 25. We want to know if x < 4545 ; that is, we want to know if x is
less than the product of 45 numbers all equal to 45. If Statement 1 is true, we
know that x is less than 45!, which is also the product of 45 positive numbers,
all of which are less than or equal to 45. So 45! < 4545 , and if x < 45!, it must
be true that x < 4545 , and Statement 1 is sufficient.
Similarly, if Statement 2 is true, we know that
67!
x< = (67)(66)(65) . . . (25)(24)(23)
22!
This is again a product of 45 numbers. However, now, some of the numbers
in this product are greater than 45, and some are less than 45, so it is not as
straightforward to compare the size of this product with the size of 4545 . We
can, however, group the terms in this product in pairs, grouping the smallest
and largest terms, the second smallest and second largest, and so on:

(67)(66)(65) . . . (25)(24)(23) = [(67)(23)][(66)(24)][(65)(25)] . . . [(46)(44)](45)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 57
If we could be certain that each pair of terms has a product less than (45)(45),
we would then know that the product of all 45 terms is less than 4545 , and
Statement 2 would be sufficient. And if we look at any pair of terms, for
example (67)(23), we can rewrite each of these numbers using its distance from
45:
(67)(23) = (45 + 22)(45 − 22) = 452 − 222
So this pair of terms has a product smaller than 452 . Since that will be true for
every pair of terms, Statement 2 is also sufficient, and the answer is D.

Sample Question 26. If n is an integer, and n > 12, then

(n + 3)! (n + 2)! (n + 1)! n!

− − +
(n + 1)! n! (n − 1)! (n − 2)!

is equal to
A) 4
B) 2n + 4
C) 4n + 4
D) n2 + 5n + 6
E) 4n2 − 20n + 24

Solution 26. In the first fraction, notice that (n + 3)! = [(n + 3)(n + 2)](n + 1)!.
This allows us to cancel; we have

(n + 3)!
= (n + 3)(n + 2)
(n + 1)!

The remaining fractions can be canceled in a similar way. So we find

(n + 3)! (n + 2)! (n + 1)! n!

− − +
(n + 1)! n! (n − 1)! (n − 2)!
= (n + 3)(n + 2) − (n + 2)(n + 1) − (n + 1)(n) + (n)(n − 1)
= (n + 2)[n + 3 − (n + 1)] − (n)[n + 1 − (n − 1)]
= (n + 2)(2) − (n)(2)
= 2n + 4 − 2n
=4

Or you could pick a number for n, and solve the question using that number.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 58
 Algebra
8 Algebraic Techniques
id 00157

8.1 Simple Factoring

In the previous sections of this book, we have already used what I call ‘simple
factoring’ several times – that is, factoring something common from a sum or
subtraction. So we have used factoring in situations like these:

3x + 3y = 3(x + y)
ab − ac = a(b − c)
37 − 35 = 35 (32 − 1)
10! − 9! = 9!(10 − 1) = (9)(9!)
3(x − 1) + y(x − 1) = (x − 1)(3 + y)

It can be helpful to understand exactly what we’re doing when we factor in

such situations, and how to correctly produce the expression in brackets even
when factoring in unusual situations. Notice that this must always be true, for
any number or algebraic expression S:
 
S
S=x
x
just by the rules of multiplying fractions. But now imagine S is some sum, say
ax + bx. Then from the above
   
ax + bx ax bx
ax + bx = x =x + = x(a + b)
x x x
That is, when we factor x from a sum, then to produce the terms in brackets,
we divide each term by x. And using the above, you can factor out anything at
all. It’s hard to imagine why we’d want to factor x2 from, say, 3 + y, but using
the above, we can:
   
2 3+y 2 3 y
3+y =x =x + 2
x2 x2 x
And if you can see how to factor in this situation, it should be easy to see how
to factor in any situation where you are at first uncertain how to produce the
sum in brackets. So, for example, you might know that you want to factor x−2
from x2 + 3x−2 . If you were unsure about how to produce the sum in brackets,
you could do as above:
x + 3x−2 3x−2
 2   2 
−2 −2 −2 x
2
x + 3x = (x ) = (x ) + −2 = (x−2 )(x4 + 3)
x−2 x−2 x

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 59
 1 2 1
Or you might want to factor 2 3 from 2 3 − 2 3 , and if it was unclear what should
end up in the brackets, you could again do as above:
2 1
!
2 1 1 23 23 1 2 1 1 1
2 3 − 2 3 = (2 3 ) 1 − 1 = (2 3 )(2 3 − 3 − 1) = (2 3 )(2 3 − 1)
23 23

among many possible situations. With even a small amount of practice, you’ll be
able to skip many or all of the middle steps above and complete the factorization
in one or two steps.
It would be difficult to overstate just how useful this kind of factoring is.
Factoring is one of the most useful techniques in all of algebra, and when you
can factor, you almost always should. There are dozens of reasons for this – for
example, it may make it more obvious what you can cancel from a fraction, or
from both sides of an equation, or it may make numbers small enough that you
can do a calculation, among many other applications you will see throughout
this book. In general, any time you notice that you are adding or subtracting
two (or more) things that all share a factor or divisor, you almost always should
factor whatever they share out. So if you were ever working with expressions
like those on the left below:
ab + bc = b(a + c)
24x + 48y + 72z = 24(x + 2y + 3z)
 
x 3y 1
− = (x − 3y)
2 2 2
it would almost always be useful to carry out the factorization on the right.
One especially common situation is one where we are adding or subtracting
two (or more) terms with the same base and different exponents. Then it is
almost always useful to factor out the term with the smallest exponent. We
often do this when the base is x:
x7 − x5 = x5 (x2 − 1)
and often need to do this in number theory questions (because it helps to get a
prime factorization):
230 − 228 = 228 (22 − 1)
We observe the same principle even when our exponents are not positive
numbers. So if you saw this, for example:

x−3 + 2x−4 + x−5

you would still almost always want to factor out the thing with the smallest
exponent, and here the smallest exponent is −5. Doing that, we get
x−3 + 2x−4 + x−5 = (x−5 )(x2 + 2x + 1)
By factoring out the thing with the smallest exponent, we ensure that we never
get fractions or negative powers in our sum in brackets.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 60
 We also sometimes see exponents that are algebraic, so which contain un-
knowns. So we might see this equation:

3x − 3x−1 = 162

There are several ways to solve this, but the fastest way is to again factor out
the term with the smaller power. Since x − 1 is smaller than x, we want to
factor out 3x−1 . If we do that, we will never get fractions in our brackets:

3x−1 (3 − 1) = 162

and then dividing by 2 on both sides, we’d find that 3x−1 = 81, so x − 1 = 4
and x = 5.
There is no need for our base to be a number for us to use this kind of
factoring. For example we can factor bx − b(x−k) in this way:

bx − b(x−k) = b(x−k) (bk − 1)

(if you were unsure how to carry out this factorization, use the multistep tech-
nique outlined earlier in this chapter) but if you needed to do that in a real
GMAT question, it would almost certainly be an 800-level question.
Sample Question 27. Is w = 3?
1) 3x + 9y = wx + 3wy

2) x + 3y < 4

A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.

B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 27. On each side of Statement 1, we can factor:

3x + 9y = wx + 3wy
3(x + 3y) = w(x + 3y)

Now it is certainly possible that w = 3, but the equation above will also be
true if x + 3y = 0, regardless of the value of w. As we’ll discuss further in the
later section on Quadratic Equations, a more systematic approach here is to
get 0 on one side. Doing that here we’d get 3(x + 3y) − w(x + 3y) = 0, and
thus (3 − w)(x + 3y) = 0, and since one factor on the left side must equal zero,
this equation tells us that either w = 3 or x + 3y = 0. So Statement 1 is not
sufficient, and since even using both Statements together we cannot rule out the
possibility that x + 3y = 0, the answer is E.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 61
Sample Question 28. If ab 6= 0, is

a4 + 1 1 + b−2
= ?
a2 + a−2 b−2 + b−4

1) ab = 1
a
2) =1
b
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 28. We can rephrase the question by factoring the smallest power
from each numerator and denominator, then canceling from each fraction:

a4 + 1 1 + b−2
Is = ?
+ a−2
a2 b−2+ b−4
4
a +1 (b−2 )(b2 + 1)
Is −2 4 = −4 2 ?
(a )(a + 1) (b )(b + 1)
1 b−2
Is −2 = −4 ?
a b
Is a2 = b2 ?

So Statement 1 is not sufficient, because ab = 1 can be true when a2 6= b2 (for

a
example if a = 2 and b = 0.5), while Statement 2 is sufficient, because if = 1,
b
then a = b and a2 = b2 is true. The answer is B.

8.2 Expressions
An expression is any arithmetic or algebraic unit. An expression √ could be
x−1
something as simple as ‘5’ or ‘x’, or something as complicated as √ or x17 +
x−1
|x17 |. One important thing to understand is the difference between expressions
and equations. Expressions are the building blocks of equations, which are
discussed in the next chapter. An equation contains an ‘=’ sign, and tells you
that one expression is the same as another. An expression never contains an
‘=’ sign (or an inequality). I have often seen test takers confused about the
distinction between expressions and equations treat them as if they were the
same. So some test takers, when seeing the expression

(x + 1)(x − 1) − x2 + 5
2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 62
might say “I’ll first multiply by 2 on both sides”. That does not make sense:
there is no such thing as “both sides” if you only have an expression. That
would only make sense if you had an inequality or equation. If we multiply
the expression above by 2, we are doubling its value, so we are changing it.,
and we can’t do that if a question asks what that expression is equal to. The
only thing you are allowed to do with an expression is rewrite it in ways that
do not change its value. So if you wanted to multiply an expression by 2, you
would also need to divide it by 2 (something we do all the time, when getting a
common denominator for two fractions). There are many other things we can
do; for example we can simplify using exponent rules, factor, cancel things from
fractions, and so on. But you cannot simply square an expression, or multiply
an expression by 5, or add 20 to an expression, unless you are compensating
by also square rooting the expression, or dividing it by 5, or subtracting 20,
respectively. So for the expression above, there is still a lot we can do: we can
multiply the two factors together to get rid of the brackets in the numerator,
then add or subtract terms in the numerator that are of the same type, then
cancel the 2 from the denominator:
(x + 1)(x − 1) − x2 + 5 x2 − 1 − x2 + 5 4
= = =2
2 2 2
In this case, the expression was in fact equal to a numerical value. That will not
normally be true. In typical GMAT questions that feature expressions (with no
equations or inequalities) your task will be to rewrite the expression, typically
in a simpler way:
Sample Question 29. If x 6= 0,
3−x x−3
− =
x 3
A) 2
2x
B) −2
3
3 x
C) −
x 3
3 x
D) − − 2
x 3
3 x
E) 2 + −
x 3
Solution 29. We can either get a common denominator, or do:
3−x x−3 3 x x 3
− = − − +
x 3 x x 3 3
3 x
= −1− +1
x 3
3 x
= −
x 3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 63
Sample Question 30. If a 6= b,
a−1 + b−1
a−1 − b−1
is equal to which of the following:

−1
a−1 + b−1
I) −1
(a−1 − b−1 )
(a + b)−1
II)
(a − b)−1
b+a
III)
b−a
A) I only
B) III only
C) I and II only
D) I and III only
E) II and III only
Solution 30. In order to compare the expression in the question with those
in the answer choices, it is easiest to write them all in the same way. We can
rewrite the expression in the question to eliminate the negative exponents:
1 1
a−1 + b−1 a + b
= 1 1
a−1 − b−1 a − b
1 1  
+ a b ab
= 1 1
− a b
ab
b+a
=
b−a
which is exactly the expression in answer choice III, so III is a correct answer
here.
We can rewrite the expressions in choices I and II in the same way. First
looking at the expression in I, recall from the exponent rules that
 c k ck
= k
d d
In answer choice I, we have an expression resembling the right side in this rule:
the numerator and denominator are both raised to identical exponents. So we
can use this rule ‘backwards’ to rewrite answer choice I:

−1 −1
a−1 + b−1
 −1
a + b−1
−1 =
(a−1 − b−1 ) a−1 − b−1
a−1 − b−1
=
a−1 + b−1

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 64
Notice now that this is the reciprocal of the expression in the question, so if
we continue to simplify, we will arrive at the reciprocal of the correct answer,
b−a
namely . So I is not correct.
b+a
Finally, looking at II, we find
1
(a + b)−1 a+b
= 1
(a − b)−1 a−b
a−b
=
a+b
which is the negative reciprocal of the correct answer, so is not correct.
The answer is III only.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 65
9 Simple Equations
An equation tells you that one expression is the same as another. An equation
might be something as simple as ‘x = 2’, or something more complicated, say
x+2 x+1
=
x−2 x+3
Because an equation tells us two things are the same, then if we, for example,
double the expression on the left side of the equation, that must be equal to
what we’d get by doubling the expression on the right side, because we are
doubling the same value. So in general, we can rewrite equations in all kinds of
ways simply by doing the same thing to both sides of the equation.
Equations also allow us to substitute (or ‘replace’, or ‘plug in’). If, for
example, we know that x = 2, and we also know that y = x2 + 10, then
since the equation x = 2 means that x and 2 are the same, we can replace
‘x’ anywhere with ‘2’. So doing that in the second equation, we’d learn that
y = (2)2 + 10 = 14. Substitutions are not limited to numbers. If instead we
knew x = y − 1, and we also knew that x = 3y + 5, then since the first equation
means that x and y − 1 are identical things, we can replace any ‘x’ with ‘y − 1’.
Doing that in the second equation we would learn that y − 1 = 3y + 5, an
equation we can solve for y by adding, subtracting, and dividing on both sides:

y − 1 = 3y + 5
−1 = 3y + 5 − y subtracting y on both sides
−1 = 2y + 5 adding 3y and −y on the right side
−1 − 5 = 2y subtracting 5 on both sides
−6 = 2y adding −1 and −5 on the left side
−3 = y dividing both sides by 2

9.1 Solving Equations

The general rule, when solving equations, is that any operation performed on
the left side of an equation must also be performed on the right side of an
equation. For example, if we want to isolate x in the following equation:

2x + 3 = 11

we can do so by subtracting 3 from both sides:

2x = 8

and then by dividing by 2 on both sides:

x=4

In general, we can always add or subtract the same number or letter from
both sides of an equation, and can always multiply both sides of an equation by

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 66
a letter or number. We can divide both sides of an equation by any number or
letter except zero. If we are dividing by a letter on both sides of an equation,
we must be certain that letter is not equal to zero. For example, if you know:

x2 = x

you cannot simply divide both sides by x to get x = 1, since it is possible that
x is equal to zero here. If we divide by x, we are losing one of the two solutions
for x – the equation has two solutions, x = 1 or x = 0. In general, if

x × (other things) = x × (other things)

then either x = 0, or (other things) = (other things). The safest way to approach
equations like this is by factoring, as explained in the chapter on Quadratic
Equations.
We can also take reciprocals on both sides of an equation provided our
numerators are not zero; if we know that
a c
=
b d
then as long as ac 6= 0, it must be that
b d
=
a c
We can also raise each side of an equation to the same exponent (with some
exceptions mentioned below). If
x=y
then it must be true that
x3 = y 3
and that
x−5 = y −5
for example, with the caveat that the new expressions must be well-defined. So
1
if x is negative in the equation above, you could not raise it to the power ,
2
because square roots of negative numbers are undefined. Nor could you raise
the number zero to a negative exponent, because that would lead to a division
by zero, which is also undefined. But these exceptions are rarely even worth
considering when solving GMAT equations, since they are rarely relevant.
There are many other things we are allowed to do with equations, though
we do not often choose to, because they are almost never useful. For example,
you can take absolute values on both sides of an equation (so if x = y, then
|x| = |y|), or make both sides exponents of the same base (so if x = y, then
2x = 2y ) among other possibilities, but there are very few situations in algebra
where doing these things would be useful.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 67
9.2 Traps
There are not many traps when solving equations – there are a much greater
number when working with inequalities, as we will see later. That said, there
are a few technicalities to be aware of.
• You may never divide by 0 on both sides of an equation, since division by
0 is undefined. Of course, you would never consciously try to divide by 0,
but you might be tempted to divide by a letter or expression which could
be equal to 0. So in the equation

(x)(y − 1) = (x − 1)(y − 1)

we cannot simply divide by y − 1 on both sides (as should be clear – if we

try, we find that x = x − 1 which is clearly a contradiction). In fact the
only way for the equation above to be true is if y − 1 = 0 and y = 1.
• If you square both sides of an equation (or raise both sides to any even
power), or if you take absolute values on both sides of an equation (some-
thing you would almost never want to do) you will want to verify in the
end that all of your solutions are legitimate. The issue here is that by
squaring both sides, we turn negative numbers into positive numbers. To
use the simplest example to illustrate the potential problem, if we have
the equation
x = −2
and then square both sides, we find that

x2 = 4

This equation is certainly true, but if we now solve this equation, we

would find that x = 2 or that x = −2. But clearly we know from the
first equation that x is not equal to 2; it is only equal to −2. By squaring
both sides, we introduced a new solution, and we can see which solutions
are valid by substituting them back into the original equation. You will
most often need to do this check if you choose to use the ‘cases method’
for absolute value problems (explained in the chapter on Absolute Value).

9.3 Guidelines
When you see an equation, in theory there is an infinite number of things you
could legally do to both sides of that equation. But typically only one or two
things you might do will actually be useful. Some equations are tricky because
it is not obvious exactly what you should do. But there are many situations
that occur over and over again, where you always want to proceed in the same
way. With practice, these steps should become ingrained habits that you no
longer need to think about when you see an equation. There is enough variety
in Algebra that there will be occasional exceptions to the suggestions below,
but these are things we almost always want to do:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 68
 • Simplify things that can be simplified. If you see 10 + 20 on one side of an
equation, add those numbers together. If an equation contains a fraction
that is not canceled down, then cancel√it down. If an equation contains √a
square root that is not simplified, say 75, simplify that root to get 5 3.
• Group terms of the same type. If you have some x’s on one side of an
equation, and on the other, or numbers on both sides of an equation, add
or subtract so they are all on the same side of the equation. So if you see
this:
5 + 3x + 2y = 10 − 2x − 3y
you would always want to add 2x and 3y to both sides, and subtract 5
from both sides to get
5x + 5y = 5
or x + y = 1. There are other ways to combine terms here (you could
instead have arrived at x + y − 1 = 0, for example) and it often won’t
matter which way you do this, but I generally prefer to avoid as many
negative signs as I can.

• Get rid of fractions. When we know one fraction equals another, say
a c
=
b d
we can always immediately eliminate our fractions by multiplying on both
sides by the product of the two denominators, so here by bd:
a c
(bd) = (bd)
b d
Notice by doing this, the denominators on both sides will cancel, leaving
us with:
ad = bc
Most people learn to carry out the steps above more quickly, by cross-
multiplying. As the above example demonstrates, if we multiply the nu-
merator on the left by the denominator on the right, that must equal what
we get when we multiply the denominator on the left by the numerator
on the right. So we can omit the middle step above just by multiplying
‘diagonally’ and setting those products equal, as in the equation
3 5
=
a 4
12 = 5a

Cross-multiplication is a very useful thing to know, because we need to

simplify equations like this extremely often in algebra.
In other situations, we might have a fraction in an equation that is part
of a sum on one side. We still would want to get rid of that fraction by

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 69
 multiplying on both sides by the denominator of that fraction, as in the
following, where we first multiply by x on both sides:
2
3+ =5
x
3x + 2 = 5x
2 = 2x
1=x

• When it is possible to factor, you will almost always want to factor. If you
see ab − ac on one side of an equation, most of the time you will want to
factor out the a to get a(b − c). If you ever see either powers of x (or some
other letter) or products of two or more letters (say xy) you will almost
always want to get 0 on one side by subtracting, and then factor on the
other side. This is explained further in the chapter below on Quadratic
Equations.

• Get rid of roots, first by isolating them on one side, and then by squaring
both sides. So in the equation below, we first get our root on one side,
then square both sides, then factor:
√
x− x−1=3
√
x−3= x−1
(x − 3)2 = x − 1
x2 − 6x + 9 = x − 1
x2 − 7x + 10 = 0
(x − 5)(x − 2) = 0
x = 5 or x = 2

Since we squared both sides of our equation, we need to verify these so-
lutions (see the discussion in the section on ‘traps’ above). Notice that
x = 2 is not a valid solution here; it must be that x = 5.
• This consideration overrides all of the considerations above: try to isolate
whatever the question asks for. Do not just√unthinkingly solve for ‘x’ if a
√ value of x − x. Instead try to rewrite the
question asks you to find the
equation so you have x − x on one side and a √ number on the other. So
if you had this equation and needed to find x − x,
5x
5= √
x+4

while we could follow the steps outlined above to solve for x, then use that
value to answer the question, it will prove√much faster to try to rewrite
the equation in such a way that we get x − x on one side. We never need

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 70
 to find the value of x at all to answer the question, so doing that would
be a waste of time. We have
5x
5= √
x+4
√
5 x + 20 = 5x
√
20 = 5x − 5 x
√
20 = 5(x − x)
√
4=x− x

We encounter this situation frequently in GMAT questions. In many Word

Problems, for example, we are asked to find the ratio of two quantities –
say, the ratio of the number of red marbles to the number of blue marbles
in a bag. If r represents the number of red marbles, and b represents the
r
number of blue marbles, we then need to find the value of . In that case,
b
r
you would want to try to rewrite any equations to get the fraction on
b
one side, and a number on the other side, rather than spend additional
time finding r and b individually first – something that might not even
be possible to do. This is particularly important in Data Sufficiency – if
r
a question asks for , you may very well be able to find the answer even
b
when you have no way of finding r and b individually. For example, you
r
can find from this equation: 2r = 5b, even though we can’t find r or b
b
alone. So if you thought, in such a question, that you needed to be able to
solve for r and solve for b, you would think you needed more information
than you truly do.

• If your equation resembles a quadratic equation, or a multiple equa-

tions/multiple unknowns problem, use the techniques discussed in the
chapters below for those algebraic situations.
y
Sample Question 31. What is the value of ?
x
x+y
1) =3
x
y+x 3
2) =
y 2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 71
 y
Solution 31. We can solve the equation in Statement 1 for :
x
x+y
=3
x
x y
+ =3
x x
y
1+ =3
x
y
=2
x
so Statement 1 is sufficient. We can do the same with Statement 2:
y+x 3
=
y 2
y x 3
+ =
y y 2
x 3
1+ =
y 2
x 1
=
y 2
y
=2
x
and Statement 2 is also sufficient, so the answer is D.
Sample Question 32. If x 6= −1, what is the value of
x+3
− 2x − 6 ?
x+1
 
1
1) − 2 (x + 3) = 18
x+1
2
2) − 2x = 23
x+1
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 32. We can rewrite the expression in the question so that it more
closely resembles the expressions in each statement. So
x+3 x+3
− 2x − 6 = − 2(x + 3)
x+1 x+1
 
1
= (x + 3) −2
x+1

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 72
so the expression in the question is equal to the left side of Statement 1, and
thus is equal to 18, and Statement 1 is sufficient.
We can also rewrite the expression in the question to resemble more closely the
expression in Statement 2:
x+3 2+x+1
− 2x − 6 = − 2x − 6
x+1 x+1
2 x+1
= + − 2x − 6
x+1 x+1
2
= + 1 − 2x − 6
x+1
2
= − 2x − 5
x+1
and by subtracting 5 on both sides of Statement 2, we can see that this expres-
sion is equal to 18, so Statement 2 is sufficient.
The answer is D.

9.4 Substitution
Whenever we know two quantities are equal, we can always replace one quantity
with the other. This is true in any algebraic situation – in an expression, in
an equation, or in an inequality. This procedure is often called substitution.
Especially when negative values or subtractions are involved, it is safest to
enclose in brackets the quantity you are substituting in to an expression, as in
the solution below:
−1 1 − k −1
Sample Question 33. If k = , then is equal to
2 −k + k −2
−6
A)
7
−1
B)
3
3
C)
5
2
D)
9
2
E)
3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 73
 −1
Solution 33. We can replace k everywhere with
2

−1
1 − k −1 1 − −12
=
−2
−k + k −2 − −1 + −1


2 2
1 − (−2)
= 1
2+ (−2)2
3
= 1
2 + 4
3
= 9

2
6
=
9
2
=
3
While the solution above is the ‘brute force’ solution, you can simplify mat-
−1
ters slightly. If you first rewrite as −2−1 , and plug in this latter expression,
2
you can use exponent rules to simplify a bit more quickly.
1 x+2
Sample Question 34. If t = , then in terms of t, is equal to
x−1 x−1
t+3
A)
t
t
B)
t+3
t
C)
3t + 1
3t + 1
D)
t
E) 3t + 1
1
Solution 34. If t = , then
x−1
 
x+2 1
= (x + 2) = (x + 2)(t)
x−1 x−1
so we now only need to express x + 2 in terms of t.
We can rewrite the relationship between t and x:
1
t=
x−1
tx − t = 1
tx = 1 + t
1+t
x=
t

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 74
Now substituting this expression for x, we find
 
1+t
(x + 2)(t) = + 2 (t) = 1 + t + 2t = 1 + 3t
t

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 75
Intermediate Algebra
10 Two Equations, Two Unknowns
Among the most common algebraic situations in GMAT Algebra is one where
you have two unknowns, and two equations relating those unknowns. This
situation is so common largely because it arises naturally as a consequence of
many Word Problems. For example, if the 300 seats in a theatre are divided
into two sections, A and B, then if we use a and b to represent the number of
seats in those sections, respectively, we would have one equation:

a + b = 300

If we then knew that the number of seats in section B was twice the number in
section A, we would have a second equation:

b = 2a

This situation, with two simple linear equations in two unknowns, is so common
in Word Problems that you should know immediately how to solve. If this is
something you are not comfortable with, practicing solving similar systems of
equations should be one of your highest priorities. But that’s because they
arise so often when solving questions on other GMAT topics. In pure Algebra
problems, you will almost never (except in very low-level questions, or questions
with some ‘trick’) encounter two equations as straightforward as those above.
There are two different methods that can be used to solve multiple equations
in multiple unknowns. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and
for certain types of problems, only one of the two methods will yield a solution
in a practical amount of time, so it is important to know both.

10.1 Substitution with Two Equations

If we return to the equations above:

b = 2a
a + b = 300

the equation b = 2a means that b and 2a are identical. So we can replace ‘b’
anywhere with ‘2a’, because they are the same thing. In particular, we can
replace ‘b’ with ‘2a’ in the second equation:

a + b = 300
a + 2a = 300
3a = 300
a = 100

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 76
We have just ‘substituted’ for b. Notice what this accomplishes: it allows us to
reduce our number of unknowns from two to one. If you need to solve for your
unknowns individually, this is always your goal, regardless of what method you
are using: successively reduce your number of unknowns by one with each step,
until you get down to a single equation and a single unknown. Once we have
solved for a, then if we also need to find b, we can substitute the value of a into
either of our earlier equations (both will yield the same answer for b, so choose
whichever equation looks simpler). So here, once we have found that a = 100,
we can substitute that value for a in this equation:
b = 2a
to find that
b = 2(100) = 200
To use substitution, we often need to rewrite one of our equations first, with
one unknown alone on one side. So if we had these equations:
c−a=3
c + a = 12
then we could rewrite the first equation with c on one side, for example:
c=3+a
Now if c is equal to 3 + a, we can replace c with 3 + a in the second equation:
c + a = 12
(3 + a) + a = 12
3 + 2a = 12
2a = 9
a = 4.5
and since c = a + 3, c must be equal to 7.5. These equations can be solved even
more simply using the ‘adding equations’ method described in the next section,
though substitution works perfectly well.
It’s when our equations become more complicated, and we begin to see
numbers in front of all of our unknowns (so when we see things like ‘3x’ and
‘5y’ in all of our equations), that substitution can become awkward. If we
decided to solve these two equations using substitution:
2x + 5y = 30
5x − 3y = 13
we would first need to isolate x or y on one side of one of the two equations
above. The simplest choice would be to isolate x in the first equation:
2x + 5y = 30
2x = 30 − 5y
30 − 5y 5y
x= = 15 −
2 2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 77
but notice the complication: early in our solution, we are already required to
work with fractions. The method will still work (see the complete solution be-
low), but the method outlined in the next section avoids fractions altogether.
So in this common situation, where our equations are not straightforward, sub-
stitution is usually a slow choice, slower than the method described in the next
5y
section. Still, it will get us the right answer; if we replace x with 15 − in the
2
second equation, we have:

5x − 3y = 13
 
5y
5 15 − − 3y = 13
2
25y 6y
75 − − = 13
2 2
31y
75 − = 13
2
31y
75 − 13 =
2
31y
62 =
2
124 = 31y
y=4

and we can finally plug y = 4 into either of our original equations to find x:

2x + 5y = 30
2x + (5)(4) = 30
2x + 20 = 30
2x = 10
x=5

10.2 Adding and Subtracting Equations

There is a second method that lets us solve most two equations / two unknowns
problems. Notice if you have these two equations,

a=b
c=d

then these equations mean “a and b are exactly the same thing” and “c and d
are exactly the same thing”. So of course if we add a and c, to get a + c, that
must be equal to what we get when we add b and d to get b + d, because in each
case we’re adding the same two numbers. But a, b, c and d could be anything
at all, and this logic would still hold. So notice a consequence of this: we can
always add two equations together. But there’s nothing special about addition

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 78
in this example. We can also subtract one equation from another, so if these
are true

a=b
c=d

then a − c = b − d, or we can multiply two equations together, so if

a=b
c=d

then ac = bd is true, or we can divide one equation by another (provided we are

not dividing by zero) so if c 6= 0 and

a=b
c=d

a b
then = is true.
c d
There are yet other ways two equations could be combined, but it turns out
in algebra in general, thatadding and subtracting equations is, by far, the most
useful way to combine them.
This then allows us to solve many two equations and two unknowns problems
using a method different from substitution. Instead, we can add or subtract our
equations in order to eliminate one of our two unknowns. In simple cases, we
can often add or subtract our equations immediately. So if we had these two
equations:

2x + y = 10
x−y =8

if we add the left sides of the equations above, and the right sides, and make
those sums equal, we have

2x + y + x − y = 10 + 8

Combining similar terms, we find 3x = 18 and x = 6. Here I wrote out com-

pletely the sum of the two left sides, but in practice, we can just line up our x’s,
and our y’s, and add them together directly. That is, seeing

2x + y = 10
x−y =8

we can add the column of x-terms to get 3x, add the column of y-terms to get
zero, and add the column of numbers to get 18, so 3x = 18. Because this is so
convenient, it is almost always useful to rewrite your equations, if necessary, so
your unknowns and numbers are in the same places in both equations.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 79
 If we revisit an example from the previous section, which required several
steps using substitution,

c−a=3
c + a = 12

notice if we immediately add the two equations, the a will disappear:

2c = 15
c = 7.5

Once we have c, we can find a by replacing c with 7.5 in either equation above;
a is 4.5.

We sometimes want instead to subtract one equation from the other. In

such cases, be careful to distribute the subtraction to every term in the second
equation. So with these two equations:

2x + y = 12
x + y = −8

it might be clear that by subtracting the second equation from the first, the y
will disappear, which is our goal (we want to eliminate one unknown). But we
should be careful when we do this: we’ll subtract x from 2x, leaving us with x,
and we’ll subtract y from y, leaving us with nothing, so we’ll have x alone on
the left side. On the right side, we’re subtracting −8 from 12. Be careful not
to inadvertently calculate 12 − 8 here, which would be incorrect; the result will
be 12 − (−8) = 20. So we have
x = 20
if we immediately subtract the second equation from the first. If we need to
find y as well, we can substitute this back in to either equation.
If you find you are ever making mistakes distributing negative signs when
subtracting one equation from another, there is a second option. If you know
you want to subtract equations, you can instead multiply the second equation
by −1 on both sides, and then add the two equations. So in the example above,
we’d end up adding these two equations, after multiplying the second equation
by −1:

2x + y = 12
−x − y = 8

and adding these gives x = 20.

When we have identical numbers in front of x or y in both equations, we
can always add (if one number is negative) or subtract (if both numbers have
the same sign) our equations immediately to eliminate that unknown. That
will generally be faster than substitution. But when that is not the case, we

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 80
often need to modify one or both of our equations, in order to first get identical
numbers in front of x (or y, whichever looks easier) in both equations. Again
revisiting an example from the previous section:
2x + 5y = 30
5x − 3y = 13
Here there would be no reason to immediately add or subtract the equations,
because that does not get us closer to our objective: we want to eliminate one
of the two unknowns. To add or subtract equations here, we need to multiply
each of our equations by a number on both sides, so that we have the same
number in front of x in both equations. We have 2x in one equation and 5x in
the other – it will be easy to get 10x in both, if we multiply the first equation
by 5 and the second by 2:
10x + 25y = 150
10x − 6y = 26
Now when we subtract the second equation from the first, we will eliminate x,
which is our goal:
31y = 124
y=4
and we can substitute this value for y back in to either equation containing x
above if we need to find x.
Notice in the solution above that we choose the numbers to multiply each
equation by in the same way that we choose a common denominator when
adding two fractions. For example, when we want to add two fractions with
denominators of 2 and 5:
1 1
+
2 5
to choose a common denominator, we can always use the product of 2 and 5,
so we can use a denominator of 10. Similarly, when we have two equations like
2x + 5y = 30 and 5x − 3y = 13, we can also use the product of the two numbers
in front of x, the 2 and the 5, so we can always create 10x in both equations.
So we think about these two situations in an identical way. Sometimes we can,
when adding two fractions, use a smaller denominator than the product of the
two denominators:
1 1 3 2 5
+ = + =
4 6 12 12 12
Here, since 4 and 6 share a divisor, their Least Common Multiple, 12, is less
than their product, 24. Using 12 as our common denominator leads to smaller
numbers and saves us needing to cancel in the last step. The same is true when
adding or subtracting equations: if we had two equations, one with 4x and one
with 6x, we could create 12x in each:
4x + 3y = 16
6x − 5y = 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 81
Here, it would be perfectly correct to create ‘24x’ in each equation, then sub-
tract, but it will be simpler to multiply the first equation by 3, and the second
by 2, to get ’12x’ in each equation, because then we will have smaller numbers
and less cancellation to do:

12x + 9y = 48
12x − 10y = 10

and subtracting the second equation from the first gives us

19y = 38
y=2

which we can plug back in to either earlier equation to find x if we need to.
It might be worthwhile to compare this method with substitution, using
either of the two equations above. Substitution produces fractions early on
in the solution process, and typically requires more steps. So with modestly
complicated two equations / two unknowns problems, adding or subtracting
your equations is usually the better choice, provided you can do it correctly.
But if you have any trouble adding or subtracting equations, then since it is so
important to have some method that lets you solve this type of algebra, you
should instead rely on substitution if that method works well for you.
It is also important to be aware of why you are learning to solve two equations
and two unknowns problems. If you practice solving any of the two equations /
two unknowns problems above, you are doing so because you might end up with a
similar algebraic situation when solving a Word Problem or a problem in another
subject, perhaps coordinate geometry. If you instead see something resembling
a two equations and two unknowns problem in a pure Algebra question, it is
either a 250-level problem, or there will be some kind of additional twist, trick
or restriction that you will need to observe:
Sample Question 35. If x and y are positive integers, what is the value of y?
1. 4x + y = 7
2. 5x + 2y = 11
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 35. Since x and y must be positive integers, from Statement 1, x
cannot be 2 or greater, since then y would be negative, so x can only be 1, and
we can find y. Similarly, using Statement 2, x cannot be 2 (since then y is not
an integer) and cannot be greater than 2 (since then y is negative), so again x
must be 1, and we can find y. So the answer is D.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 82
Sample Question 36. What is the value of x?
1. x − (x − 2y) = 3y − 5
2. y − (x − 2y) = 3y − 8
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 36. We can solve the equation in Statement 1:

x − (x − 2y) = 3y − 5
x − x + 2y = 3y − 5
2y = 3y − 5
y=5

which gives us no information about x, so is not sufficient.

Solving the equation in Statement 2, we find

y − (x − 2y) = 3y − 8
y − x + 2y = 3y − 8
3y − x = 3y − 8
x=8

and Statement 2 is sufficient, and the answer is B.

Notice in the two sample questions above that, at first glance, it appears that
you have, or will arrive at, a standard 2 equations / 2 unknowns problem. So
you might guess, at first, that you will need both Statements to solve for x and
y. But in neither question does that turn out to be the case, either because of a
restriction (x and y were positive integers in the first question) or a potentially
unexpected simplification (in the second problem). In pure Algebra problems on
the GMAT, you should similarly expect that the answer to questions resembling
those above will usually not be C, and you should be sure to investigate your
equations thoroughly before choosing your answer.
I stress this point because some prep companies advise test takers to ‘count
equations and count unknowns’ on DS questions, and to guess that information
is sufficient only when you have the same number of equations as unknowns. If
you have never heard about that ‘strategy’ before, then you can ignore it and
move on to the next section. But if you have, and you’re tempted to use it
on GMAT Data Sufficiency questions, notice that in the two questions above,
seeing the two unknowns in both, you would guess C both times, thinking you
needed two equations. So you would answer both questions incorrectly.
That turns out to be true not only for questions in my books, but for ques-
tions on the real GMAT as well. On medium-level official GMAT questions, this

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 83
‘count equations, count unknowns’ strategy answers Data Sufficiency questions
1
correctly only of the time, which on DS is about as bad as random guessing
3
(since you can very often quickly eliminate some wrong answers on DS questions
just by noticing one Statement cannot be sufficient, or that one Statement must
1
be sufficient). The strategy also succeeds only of the time on hard questions.
3
It’s only on low-level questions (where you won’t need a good guessing strategy
anyway) that the strategy is at all successful: then if you use it, you’ll get a
2
right answer of the time. If you’re an above average test taker, that is actually
3
a bad success rate on easy questions, but the ‘count equations and unknowns’
strategy might be useful for a test taker with a score below Q20 who is aiming
for a Q25. If that does not describe you, then absolutely avoid this strategy
(and anyone recommending it) since it is among the worst advice you could
follow on the GMAT if you are an above average test taker.

10.3 Comparing the Two Methods

In standard two equations and two unknowns problems, either of the two meth-
ods discussed above will work. Sometimes one method is preferable to another,
but the two methods take a comparable amount of time in most situations. But
there are some situations, discussed below, where you must use one of the two
methods. So it is important to know both. In general:

• When your two equations are simple, it rarely makes a big difference which
method you choose

• That said, sometimes your equations will be written in such a way that
substitution can be done immediately. So if one (or both) of your equations
begins with y = . . ., you can immediately substitute without needing to
rewrite an equation first. Then substitution will often be the easier choice.
So in particular, when solving for the intersection point of two lines in
coordinate geometry, you might see these two equations:

y = 2x + 4
y =x−6

and you can immediately solve the equation 2x + 4 = x − 6 and avoid any
potential errors distributing minus signs when you subtract one equation
from the other.

• In other cases, equations will be written in such a way that you can add
or subtract them immediately. This will be true when your letters are
already lined up, and you have identical numbers in front of x or y in
both equations (ignoring signs). Then this will always be faster than

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 84
 substitution. So if you see these equations:
3x + y = 11
2x − y = 4
if we now immediately add the equations, we immediately discover 5x =
15.
• In other simple two equations / two unknowns problems, either method
will work quickly. But when you have more complicated problems, with
numbers in front of each unknown, adding or subtracting equations tends
to be faster and easier.
• When you have nonlinear equations – equations where you are multiplying
unknowns together, raising unknowns to exponents, or where unknowns
are in denominators of fractions – sometimes substitution will be the only
method you can use to solve. These situations are discussed further below.
• When you need to solve for some combination of unknowns, say x + y or
x−y, the only convenient method may be adding or subtracting equations.
Substitution generally obligates you to solve for each unknown separately
before you can do anything else. By adding or subtracting equations,
you might be able to solve for x + y or x − y directly, without the many
intervening steps required to first find x and y alone.
Sample Question 37. A convenience store sells two sizes of an iced drink, a
Jumbo size and a Bucket size. If 9 Jumbo size drinks and 4 Bucket size drinks
contain 14.5 Liters of drink in total, and 4 Jumbo size drinks and 9 Bucket size
drinks contain 18 Liters of drink in total, how many more Liters of drink are in the
Bucket size than in the Jumbo size?
A) 0.5
B) 0.7
C) 0.9
D) 1.1
E) 1.2
Solution 37. If we let b be the number of Liters of drink in a Bucket size drink,
and j the number of Liters in a Jumbo drink, we have these two equations:
9b + 4j = 18
4b + 9j = 14.5
Now of course we could use any standard technique to solve for b and j individ-
ually, and then subtract j from b to find the answer. But with equations this
complicated, that will be time-consuming. We only want to find b − j here, so
we don’t need to find b and j separately. Instead we can notice that if we just
immediately subtract the second equation from the first, we get
5b − 5j = 3.5
and dividing by 5 on both sides, b − j = 0.7.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 85
10.4 Nonlinear Equations
Some two equations / two unknowns problems cannot be solved by adding or
subtracting equations. This is only ever true when the two equations are fun-
damentally different – for example, when one equation contains exponents, and
the other does not. In those situations, you may sometimes be able to add or
subtract equations, but substitution will always work as a fallback, so imme-
diately resort to substitution if adding or subtracting equations won’t give you
useful information. When substituting in nonlinear equations, you will often end
up with a quadratic equation, and that happens in both of the examples below.
So if you are unfamiliar with how to factor a quadratic, return to this section
after reading the next chapter. For example, if you had these two equations:

a2 + b2 = 25
a+b=7

there is no way to add or subtract these equations to eliminate either a or b.

But we can rewrite the second equation as b = 7 − a and substitute that for b
in the first equation:

a2 + b2 = 25
a2 + (7 − a)2 = 25
a2 + 49 − 14a + a2 = 25
2a2 − 14a + 24 = 0
a2 − 7a + 12 = 0
(a − 4)(a − 3) = 0

and a can be equal to 4 or 3, and plugging each value into either equation above
(choose the simpler one, since either will yield the same solution), we find b can
be 3 or 4, respectively. There is also a shortcut to the problem above, with
these specific numbers, if you notice that the numbers come from the familiar
3-4-5 right triangle.
Sample Question 38. If xy = 96 and 2x − y = 16, the largest possible value of
x − y is
A) −4
B) 4
C) 8
D) 20
E) 28
Solution 38. We can rewrite the second equation with y on one side, then
substitute into the first equation:

2x − y = 16
y = 2x − 16

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 86
and substituting for y in the other equation, we find
xy = 96
x(2x − 16) = 96
2x2 − 16x = 96
2x2 − 16x − 96 = 0
x2 − 8x − 48 = 0
(x − 12)(x + 4) = 0
so either x = 12, in which case y = 8 and x − y = 4, or x = −4, in which case
y = −24, and x − y = (−4) − (−24) = 20. So the maximum possible value of
x − y is 20.

10.5 Three Equations in Three Unknowns

It’s uncommon on the GMAT to need to solve three or more equations in three
or more unknowns. In general, we follow the same principles as before: work
to eliminate one unknown at a time. It’s often easiest to add or subtract two
equations first, then to use substitution to finish the problem. So if we needed
to solve these equations for a, b and c:
a + 2b + 3c = 15
3a − b + 2c = 3
2a + 3b − c = 18
there are many ways to begin – we just need to choose any two of the equations,
and then, multiplying on both sides as needed, add or subtract the equations
to eliminate one unknown. So if we use the first two equations, multiplying the
second equation by 2, we can then add the equations to eliminate b:
a + 2b + 3c = 15
6a − 2b + 4c = 6
and adding these equations we find
7a + 7c = 21
so a + c = 3, or c = 3 − a. It can now be convenient to use substitution – just
be sure to now use the one equation we have not yet used above, so that you
are using new information (if you don’t do this, you’ll find you won’t be able to
solve for anything). So if we replace c with 3 − a in the first equation, we find
a + 2b + 3c = 15
a + 2b + 3(3 − a) = 15
a + 2b + 9 − 3a = 15
2b − 2a = 6
b−a=3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 87
and doing the same in the third equation we find

2a + 3b − c = 18
2a + 3b − (3 − a) = 18
2a + 3b − 3 + a = 18
3a + 3b = 21
a+b=7

So we now have just two equations in two unknowns, which we can solve either
by substituting or by adding the equations:

b+a=7
b−a=3
2b = 10
b=5

and plugging that value of b back into either equation above, say b + a = 7,
we find that a = 2, and lastly plugging both of those values into any equation
containing c, for example a + 2b + 3c = 15, we find

a + 2b + 3c = 15
2 + 2(5) + 3c = 15
12 + 3c = 15
3c = 3
c=1

You might notice just how time-consuming the above is, even for what would be
one of the simpler possible three equation/three unknown problems. Because
this is so time-consuming, the GMAT can’t often ask you to do all of this work
unless there is some shortcut built in to the problem. So you generally should be
looking quickly for shortcuts in these situations, but falling back on the method
above quickly if you cannot find one.
Sample Question 39. If 4d − 6e + 5f = 18, what is the value of f ?
1) 3e − 2d = 21
2) d = 4.5
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 39. Notice, using Statement 1 alone, that multiplying by −2 on both
sides gives us
4d − 6e = −42

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 88
and since we know that 4d − 6e + 5f = 18, we can substitute ‘−42’ for ‘4d − 6e’,
leaving us with
−42 + 5f = 18
which we can solve for f (we’d find f = 12). So Statement 1 is sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient alone, since by substituting for d, we still have one
equation in two unknowns that cannot be solved for f . So the answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 89
11 Quadratic and Related Equations
11.1 Multiplying Factors
Recall that if we take a sum, or difference, and multiply it by some letter or
number, we must multiply every term in the sum or difference by that letter or
number:
(a + b)(z) = az + bz
and of course this is reversible; if we see a sum or subtraction in which each term
can be divided by some letter or number, we can factor that letter or number
out. So if we see the right side of the equation above, we could factor out the z
to produce the left side.
It’s very common in algebra that we want to multiply two sums together,
for example. So we might want to multiply

(a + b)(x + y)

This is just a minor generalization of what we did above: if we temporarily let

z = x + y, then this becomes

(a + b)(z) = az + bz

and now replacing z with x + y, we see that this equals

a(x + y) + b(x + y) = ax + ay + bx + by

Condensing what we’ve just done into one line,

(a + b)(x + y) = a(x + y) + b(x + y) = ax + ay + bx + by

This can be extended to arbitrarily complicated sums or differences, so for

example, if we need to expand the following:

(a + b − 1)(c − b − 2)

we can do as we did above:

(a + b − 1)(c − b − 2) = a(c − b − 2) + b(c − b − 2) − 1(c − b − 2)

= ac − ab − 2a + bc − b2 − 2b − c + b + 2
= ac − ab − 2a + bc − b2 − b − c + 2

11.2 Factoring
Just as often in algebra, we want to do the steps explained above in reverse.
That is, we often see some complicated sum or difference, involving either
• letters raised to exponents, say x2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 90
 • or letters multiplied together, say bc
or both, and want to rewrite it as a product of two simpler sums or differences.
So we might see the following:
cd2 + cy + xy + d2 x
Note that we can’t just factor one thing out of every term, nor is this a standard
quadratic equation (covered below). But if we look just at the first two terms,
we can factor something common from both:
cd2 + cy + xy + d2 x = c(d2 + y) + xy + d2 x
and we can also do the same with the last two terms:
c(d2 + y) + xy + d2 x = c(d2 + y) + x(y + d2 )
and now, reversing what we did in the previous section, this is equal to
(c + x)(d2 + y)
So in general, if you encounter a situation where you know you need to factor
– for example, you see a fraction with a complicated sum in the numerator,
where you know there must be cancellation – and you cannot factor using any
standard simple technique, try grouping terms in pairs and factoring something
common from each pair. You then may end up with the same thing in brackets
each time, which will let you complete a factorization:
Sample Question 40. If a + d 6= 0 and
ab + ac + bd + cd
= 17
a+d
what is the value of b?
1) a = 4
2) c = −3
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 40. We can factor in the numerator:
ab + ac + bd + cd
= 17
a+d
a(b + c) + d(b + c)
= 17
a+d
(a + d)(b + c)
= 17
a+d
b + c = 17
so in order to find b, we only need the value of c, and the answer is B.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 91
Sample Question 41. If x 6= 0, what is the value of y?
y 3
1) xy + − 3x − = 0
x x
2) x = 3

A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.

B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 41. In Statement 1, we can factor y from the first two terms, and 3
from the second two terms:
y 3
xy + − 3x − = 0
  x x

1 1
y x+ −3 x+ =0
x x
 
1
(y − 3) x + =0
x
For this equation to be true, one of the factors on the left side must be equal to
1
zero. But x + can never equal zero, because it will always be positive if x is
x
positive, and negative if x is negative. So y − 3 = 0 must be true, and y = 3, so
Statement 1 is sufficient. Since Statement 2 is clearly not sufficient alone, the
answer is A.

11.3 FOIL
If you understand the expansion method explained in the previous section, there
is no reason to learn another one, but if you look at any other algebra books,
you’ll see ‘FOIL’ mentioned so often it makes sense to at least know what it
means, even if you’ll never use it. ‘FOIL’ is a mnemonic some people use to
remind themselves of all four products that must be calculated when multiplying
two simple factors together like the following:
(x + 5)(y − c)
‘FOIL’ is a reminder to multiply the ‘First’ terms in each factor, to get xy, the
‘Outer’ terms in each factor to get −cx, the ‘Inner’ terms to get 5y, and the
‘Last’ terms to get −5c. We’d then add those four terms to get the expansion,
xy − cx + 5y − 5c. Of course this amounts to the same thing as we did above:
(x + 5)(y − c) = x(y − c) + 5(y − c) = xy − cy + 5y − 5c
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with remembering and using ‘FOIL’ (especially
if you’re otherwise in danger of forgetting one of the necessary multiplications),

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 92
but it has the disadvantage that it is only applicable to products of two factors
that each contain exactly two terms. Since you need a method regardless that
allows you to multiply, say

(a + b + c)(x + y)

the method from the previous section will sometimes be required.

Sample Question 42. If k is a positive integer, and n = (2k + 3k )(5k + 7k ),
what is the units digit of n?
1) 9 × 1011 < 10k < 1.2 × 1013
2) k is even
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 42. We need to find the units digit of (2k +3k )(5k +7k ) = 10k +14k +
15k + 21k . Now the units digit of 10k will always be 0, the units digit of 15k
will always be 5, and the units digit of 21k will always be 1. The only reason
we need any information at all to answer the question is because 14k can have
different units digits depending on the value of k. If we look at the pattern in
the units digits of 14k for small values of k, we find:
• 141 ends in 4
• 142 ends in 6
• 143 ends in 4
• 144 ends in 6
and so on. So 14k ends in 4 if k is odd, and in 6 if k is even. So Statement 2
is clearly sufficient alone. From Statement 1, k can be equal to 12 or to 13, so
might be odd or even, and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
The answer is B.
Sample Question 43. If a 6= 2b and b 6= 3c, and
a+b b+c
=
a − 2b b − 3c
what is the value of a?
1) b = 2c
2) 3b2 = c + bc
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 93
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 43. Since the question asks us to find a, we should first solve for a in
the equation given:
a+b b+c
=
a − 2b b − 3c
(a + b)(b − 3c) = (a − 2b)(b + c)
ab − 3ac + b2 − 3bc = ab + ac − 2b2 − 2bc
3b2 − bc = 4ac
3b2 − bc
a=
4c
Now if we use Statement 1 and substitute for b in the equation we just found,
we discover that
3(2c)2 − (2c)(c) 12c2 − 2c2 5c
a= = =
4c 4c 2
but since we have no idea what the value of c is, we cannot find the value of a,
and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Using Statement 2, we might compare the appearance of the equation in the
Statement with the appearance of the expression we found for a. Notice both
contain 3b2 and bc. Since they appear similar, we should try to rewrite one of
them to resemble the other as closely as possible. So rewriting the equation in
3b2 − bc
Statement 2 to get something that looks like , we have
4c
3b2 = c + bc
3b2 − bc = c
3b2 − bc
=1
c
3b2 − bc 1
=
4c 4
and since the left side of this equation is equal to a, we have just proved that
1
a = , and Statement 2 is sufficient. The answer is B.
4

11.4 Factoring Quadratics

The most common factoring situation in GMAT Algebra, besides the simple
situation where we factor something common to several terms in a sum or sub-
traction, is one where we need to factor a quadratic. A quadratic is an expression

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 94
that contains an x2 terms, along with (almost always) an x term and a number.
So for example,
x2 + 5x + 6
is a quadratic. In almost every circumstance, if you see a quadratic in a GMAT
question (whether on its own, or as is more common, in an equation), then you
should factor the quadratic. Suppose we see this equation:

x2 + 6 = −5x

Before doing any factoring, you should always get zero on one side of the equa-
tion, for a reason that will become clear at the end:

x2 + 5x + 6 = 0

We now want to rewrite the left side as a product of two ‘factors’, each of which
will look like (x + a) where a is some positive or negative number. That is, we
want to rewrite the left side as follows:

x2 + 5x + 6 = (x + a)(x + b)

By expanding the right side of the above, we can see how to find a and b:

(x + a)(x + b) = x2 + bx + ax + ab = x2 + (a + b)x + ab

Now, if x2 + (a + b)x + ab will be equal to x2 + 5x + 6, then a + b will need

to be equal to 5, and ab will need to be equal to 6. So, to factor x2 + 5x + 6,
we need to find two numbers with a product of 6, and a sum of 5. It is best
to first consider which numbers will give us the correct product, since that will
leave us with only very few possibilities to consider. If ab = 6, then the only
possible pairs of integer values for a and b are 1 and 6, 2 and 3, −1 and −6
and −2 and −3. From these, we can choose the pair that gives the correct sum;
since our numbers must add to 5, we want to choose a = 2 and b = 3 (notice it
doesn’t matter which is which here). So returning to our original equation, we
can rewrite the left side:

x2 + 5x + 6 = 0
(x + 2)(x + 3) = 0

As important as knowing how to factor is knowing why we factor. Why does

factoring help us to work out what x can be equal to? Notice we now have a
product on the left side of the equation, (x + 2) times (x + 3), and we know this
product is equal to zero. The only way a product can equal zero is if one of the
terms in the product equals zero; that is, it must be true either that x + 2 = 0,
and thus that x = −2, or that x + 3 = 0, and that x = −3.
It is for this reason that we always want to get zero on one side of an equation
before factoring: it is only because we know the product equals zero that we
can instantly find the values of x.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 95
 If a quadratic contains any negative signs, you would normally first ask what
the signs will be within your factors before thinking about actual numbers. So
if you see this:
y 2 − 24y + 143 = 0
then you know you want two numbers with a product of positive 143, but with
a sum of negative 24, so those two numbers will both need to be negative, and
the factorization will look like:

(y − something)(y − something)

where the ‘something’ is a positive number in both cases. And since 11 and 13
give us a product of 143, the factorization is

(y − 11)(y − 13)

and the solutions are y = 11 or y = 13.

If we have two negatives, as in this quadratic equation,

a2 − 5a − 36 = 0

then we want two numbers with a product of −36 and a sum of −5. Since their
product is negative, one number will be negative, and the other will be positive:

(a + something)(a − something)

In this case, where our factors have opposite signs in the middle, then if the
sum of our two numbers is −5, we will want two numbers that are 5 apart if
we think of them both as positive numbers. But the number that will go in the
factor with the subtraction will need to be larger than the number that goes
in the factor with the sum, so they add to a negative value. So we want two
numbers that differ by 5, and multiply to 36, and those numbers are 9 and 4.
Putting the larger number, 9, in the factor with the subtraction, we have

(a − 9)(a + 4) = 0

and the solutions are a = 9 or a = −4.

Sample Question 44. What is the value of 3x2 + 5x − 2?
 
17
1) x + (x − 4) = 0
3
2) x2 − 16 = 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 96
Solution 44. From Statement 1, we know that one factor must equal 0, so we
−17
have two possibilities: either x = , or x = 4. If we plug each value into the
3
expression in the question, we can see what answers we get in each case. If we
−17
plug in x = we find the expression is equal to:
3
2
172
  
−17 −17 (5)(−17)
(3) + (5) −2= + −2
3 3 3 3
17(17 − 5)
= −2
3
= (17)(4) − 2
= 66
and if we plug in x = 4, we find the expression is equal to
(3)(42 ) + 5(4) − 2 = 48 + 20 − 2
= 66
So for either solution from Statement 1, the expression in the question is equal
to 66, and Statement 1 is sufficient.
For Statement 2, if x2 − 16 = 0, then (x + 4)(x − 4) = 0, and we have two
possibilities: either x = 4 or x = −4. We already saw in the analysis of
Statement 1 that when x = 4, the expression in question is equal to 66. But if
x = −4, the expression in question will not be equal to 66:
(3)(−4)2 + (5)(−4) − 2 = 48 − 20 − 2
= 26
so Statement 2 is not sufficient.
The answer is A.
Sample Question 45. If x3 + x2 = abx2 + abx, is x = ab?
1) x > 0
2) ab = 6
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 45. Seeing the various powers of x in the equation in the stem suggests
we should be factoring. First getting 0 on one side,
x3 + x2 − abx2 − abx = 0
(x)(x2 + x − abx − ab) = 0
(x)(x2 + (1 − ab)x − ab) = 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 97
Now to factor x2 + (1 − ab)x − ab, we want to find two terms with a product
equal to −ab. There aren’t many simple possibilities to consider: the two terms
could be −a and b or a and −b, or they could be 1 and −ab or −1 and ab. We
need the sum of the two terms to be 1 − ab, so the two terms we want are 1 and
−ab and we have the factorization

(x)(x + 1)(x − ab) = 0

Since these factors multiply to 0, one of them must equal 0. So before looking
at the statements, we know one of the following is true:
• x=0

• x = −1
• x = ab
Now if Statement 1 is true, clearly x is not equal to 0 or to −1, so the only
possibility is that x = ab, and Statement 1 is sufficient. Statement 2 is not
useful, so the answer is A.
Sample Question 46. If k is a constant, and x = −5 is a solution to the equation
x3 + kx2 − 97x = 210, which of the following is another solution to this equation?
A) −14
B) −3
C) 5
D) 9
E) 15
Solution 46. If x = −5 is a solution to the equation, then by plugging in
x = −5, we can find k (first dividing both sides by −5 to get smaller numbers):

(−5)3 + k(−5)2 − (97)(−5) = 210

(−5)2 + (k)(−5) − 97 = −42
25 − 5k − 97 = −42
5k = −30
k = −6

So we need to find solutions to x3 − 6x2 − 97x − 210 = 0. At this point, we

could plug each answer choice in to this equation to find which answer choice is
a solution, but most of the calculations we’d then need to do are very awkward.
Instead we can try to complete a factorization on the left side of this equation.
We know that x = −5 is one solution, so (x + 5) must be one factor of the left
side. Using this to begin a factorization, we know

x3 − 6x2 − 97x − 210 = (x + 5)(x2 + Ax + B)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 98
where A and B are unknown numerical values for the moment. However, the
−210 on the left side above can only come from the product of 5 and B, so it
must be that B = −42. So we have

x3 − 6x2 − 97x − 210 = (x + 5)(x2 + Ax − 42)

Further, looking at the −6x2 term on the left, that comes from summing two
separate products on the right: 5x2 + Ax2 . Since −6x2 = 5x2 + Ax2 , we find
that A = −11. So we can factor completely:

x3 − 6x2 − 97x − 210 = (x + 5)(x2 − 11x − 42) = (x + 5)(x − 14)(x + 3)

and since we know this expression is equal to zero, the solutions are x = −5,
x = 14 and x = −3. The answer is B.
Sample Question 47. If c is a constant, and a and b are solutions for x to the
equation
x2 + 2cx + c2 = 1
then which of the following could be equal to a − b?
I) 1
II) 2
III) 4

A) I only
B) II only
C) III only
D) I and III only
E) II and III only
Solution 47. We can rearrange the equation with 0 on one side:

x2 + 2cx + (c2 − 1) = 0

We now want to factor this by finding two numbers with a product of c2 − 1

and a sum of 2c. Notice that our product, c2 − 1, is a difference of squares:
c2 −1 = (c+1)(c−1). Since c+1+c−1 = 2c, we have found a factorization that
will work, and since a quadratic can have at most two solutions, the solutions
we find below must be the only two possible solutions:

x2 + 2cx + (c2 − 1) = 0
(x + c + 1)(x + c − 1) = 0

and setting each factor equal to 0, we find that the solutions for x are −1 − c
and 1 − c. So these are the values of a and b, though we don’t know which is
a and which is b. Subtracting them in either order, we find that a − b is either
equal to −2 or to 2, and the answer is thus II only.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 99
11.5 The Difference of Squares and Other Factoring Pat-
terns
id 00157
The difference of squares (by which we mean a subtraction involving two
squares: x2 − y 2 ) shows up all the time in GMAT mathematics. It has a very
simple factorization:
x2 − y 2 = (x + y)(x − y)
This can appear in many different question types, as is illustrated in the sample
questions which follow. You will need to be able to recognize how to factor a
difference of squares if one appears on the test, but you will also want to be
able to quickly multiply together two factors which resemble those on the right
side of the equation above. The difference of squares is particularly common in
questions involving square roots, since it can make roots ‘disappear’, as in the
following:
Sample Question 48.
√ √ √ √
( 5 + 3)( 5 − 3) =

A) 2
B) 4√ √
5+ 3
C)
2
D) 8
E) 16

Solution 48. Here, noticing the difference of squares pattern, we have

√ √ √ √ √ √
( 5 + 3)( 5 − 3) = ( 5)2 − ( 3)2 = 5 − 3 = 2

Sample Question 49.

√ !2 √ !2
1 1+ 5 1 1− 5
√ −√ =
5 2 5 2

A) 1
B) √
2
C) √ 5
D) 2 5√− 1
E) 0.5( 5 − 1)
1
Solution 49. We can begin by factoring out √ , and then use the difference
5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 100
of squares factorization:
√ !2 √ !2 √ !2 √ !2
 
1 1+ 5 1 1− 5 1  1+ 5 1− 5 
√ −√ =√ −
5 2 5 2 5 2 2
√ √ ! √ √ !
1 1+ 5 1− 5 1 + 5 (1 − 5)
=√ + −
5 2 2 2 2
  √ !
1 2 2 5
=√
5 2 2
√
5
=√
5
=1

We’ve already used the difference of squares to ‘rationalize denominators’

(i.e. to get square roots out of denominators) in an earlier chapter. Of course
it frequently appears in pure Algebra problems, and it also shows up in many
Number Theory questions, or arithmetic questions involving the types of fac-
toring we often use in Number Theory:
Sample Question 50.
(12!)2 − (11!)2
=
(12! − 11!)2
1
A)
232
1
B)
11
C) 1
13
D)
11
23
E)
13
Solution 50.
(12!)2 − (11!)2 (12! + 11!)(12! − 11!)
2
=
(12! − 11!) (12! − 11!)(12! − 11!)
12! + 11!
=
12! − 11!
11!(12 + 1)
=
11!(12 − 1)
13
=
11

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 101
 You also will encounter the difference of squares very often in geometry
problems. Notice, for example, that the Pythagorean Theorem can be rewritten
as a difference of squares:

a2 + b2 = c2
a2 = c2 − b2

Thus if we know the length of the hypotenuse and one of the legs of a right
triangle, we can use the difference of squares to find the length of the third side.

Sample Question 51. If the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is 65,
and the length of one leg of the triangle is 63, what is the length of the third side?
A) 2
B) 8
C) 16
D) 32
E) 64
Solution 51. By the Pythagorean Theorem, we have

632 + b2 = 652

Of course, we could calculate 652 and 632 , but that would be time-consuming.
Instead we can use the difference of squares:

b2 = 652 − 632
b2 = (65 + 63)(65 − 63)
b2 = (128)(2)
b2 = 256
b = 16

(we ignore the negative solution for b, since b is a length and must be positive).

To use the difference of squares factorization, we do not strictly need to have

squares – we really just need to have a subtraction. For example, x6 is a square;
it is equal to (x3 )2 . So we can factor the following:

x6 − y 6 = (x3 + y 3 )(x3 − y 3 )
√
Even x is a square, provided x is not negative; x = ( x)2 . So, while it almost
never would be useful, we can factor something like the following as a difference
of squares: √ √
x − y 10 = ( x + y 5 )( x − y 5 )

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 102
 There are two other ‘factoring patterns’ which appear very frequently, and
which should be memorized:

(x + y)2 = x2 + 2xy + y 2

and
(x − y)2 = x2 − 2xy + y 2
If you see an expression resembling the right side of either of the two equations
above, it is important to be able to recognize that you can factor this expression
very simply. It is also important to know how to expand an expression like the
ones on the left side of the equations above fairly quickly.
Sample Question 52. If x > 211 and
√ √
x − 211 = x − 1

what is the value of x?

A) 1052
B) 1062
C) 2102
D) 2112
E) 2122
Solution
√ 52. We can start by squaring both sides of the equation, then isolating
the x term and squaring again:
√ √
( x − 211)2 = ( x − 1)2
√
x − 211 = x − 2 x + 1
√
2 x = 212
√
x = 106
x = 1062

Sample Question 53. If x > y > 0, what is the value of z?

(x + y)2 − (x − y)2
1) z =
xy
2) x = y + 2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 103
Solution 53. We could expand the numerator completely in Statement 1, but
we can also just use the difference of squares:
(x + y)2 − (x − y)2
z=
xy
(x + y + x − y)(x + y − x + y)
=
xy
(2x)(2y)
=
xy
=4

So Statement 1 is sufficient. Since Statement 2 is clearly not sufficient alone,

the answer is A.
Sample Question 54. If cd 6= 0 and k is a real number, is c = d?
1) c + d = 2k
2) cd = k 2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 54. Neither Statement is sufficient alone, since for any value of k we
choose, we can easily come up with a scenario in which c = d and a scenario in
which c 6= d.
Using both statements together, we know that

c + d = 2k
c+d
=k
2
c+d
so we can substitute for k in the equation in Statement 2:
2
cd = k 2
 2
c+d
cd =
2
4cd = c2 + 2cd + d2
0 = c2 − 2cd + d2

Now if we recognize that the right side of this equation is one of the basic
factoring patterns, we find
0 = (c − d)2
which can only be true if c = d, so the answer is C.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 104
Sample Question 55. If x > 0,
x16 − 1
=
x12 + x8 + x4 + 1

A) x4 − 1
B) x4 + 1
C) x4 + x2 + 1
D) x4 − 2x2 + 1
E) x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1
Solution 55.
x16 − 1 (x8 + 1)(x8 − 1)
=
x12 + x8 + x4 + 1 x8 (x4 + 1) + (x4 + 1)
(x8 + 1)(x4 + 1)(x4 − 1)
=
(x8 + 1)(x4 + 1)
= x4 − 1

Sample Question 56.

(0.177)2 + (0.354)(0.823) + (0.823)2 =

A) 0.95
B) 0.9602
C) 1
D) 1.028
E) 2.25
Solution 56.

(0.177)2 + (0.354)(0.823) + (0.823)2 = (0.177)2 + (2)(0.177)(0.823) + (0.823)2

= (0.177 + 0.823)2
= 12
=1

√ √ √ √ √ √
Sample Question 57. If x + y = 3 3 and x − y = 15 then xy is equal
to √
A) 3 3 + 1
B) 9 √
C) 27 − 3 5
D) 12
√
E) 9 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 105
 √
Solution 57. By adding the two equations, we can find 2 x, and by subtracting
√
them, we can find 2 y:
√ √ √
x+ y=3 3
√ √ √
x − y = 15
√ √ √
2 x = 3 3 + 15
√ √ √
2 y = 3 3 − 15

Now multiplying, and noticing the difference of squares pattern on the right
side, we find
√ √  √ √  √ √ 
(2 x)(2 y) = 3 3 + 15 3 3 − 15
√ √  √ 2 √ 2
(2 x)(2 y) = 3 3 − 15
√
4 xy = 27 − 15
√
xy = 3
xy = 9

Sample Question 58.

220 + 212 + 22 =

A) 5142
B) 10262
C) 10442
D) 20522
E) 20562
Solution 58. We can first factor out the term with the smallest power, 22 . Then
we arrive at an expression which looks somewhat like the x2 + 2x + 1 pattern,
and if we notice that 210 is just equal to (2)(29 ), we can use this factorization:

220 + 212 + 22 = (22 )(218 + 210 + 1)

= (22 )(218 + (2)(29 ) + 1)
= (22 )(29 + 1)2
= [(2)(29 + 1)]2
= [(2)(513)]2
= 10262

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 106
Sample Question 59.

(0.999856) (0.999375)
=
(1.012) (0.975)

A) 0.9867
B) 0.9992
C) 1.0061
D) 1.0127
E) 1.0135
Solution 59. For the calculation to be at all practical, it must be possible to
somehow cancel the terms in the denominator with those in the numerator. We
can notice that every term is very close in value to 1, and write each using its
distance from 1:
1 − 144 625



(0.999856) (0.999375) 106
1 − 106

= 12 25
(1.012) (0.975) 1 + 10 3 1 − 103

We can now factor in the numerator using the difference of squares:

12 12 25 25





1 + 10 3 1 − 10 3 1 + 10 3 1 − 103
=
1 + 123 1 − 10 25



3
   10 
12 25
= 1− 1+
1000 1000
12 25 (12)(25)
=1− + −
1000 1000 1, 000, 000
13 300
=1+ −
1000 1, 000, 000
130 3
=1+ −
10, 000 10, 000
= 1.0127

Sample Question 60.

√ √
q q
9+4 5+ 30 − 10 5 =

A) 7 √
B) 3 + 2 5√
C) 19.5 −√3 5
D) 39 − 6 5√
E) 140 − 60 5

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 107
Solution 60. For this question to be solvable, it must be possible to simplify
each square root, since there is no obvious rule we can use. And if the individual
square roots can be simplified, that would mean that the expressions under each
root are each squares of another fairly√simple expression. We can ask what the
expression under the first root – 9 + 4 5 – might
√ be the square of. It is clearly
not the square of an integer
√ (because of the 5) , nor could it be the square of
a simple expression like a 5 for some integer
√ a, because in neither case would
we arrive at the sum of an integer and a 5 term after squaring. But it could
be the square of an expression that looks like this, for some numbers a and b:
√
a+b 5

Notice if we square this, we get:

√ √
(a + b 5)2 = a2 + 5b2 + 2ab 5
√
which will equal 9 + 4 5 if both of the following are true:

a2 + 5b2 = 9
4 = 2ab

Since the second equation tells us that ab = 2, then if we assume a and b are
positive integers, there are only two possibilities to consider: a = 2 and b = 1,
or a = 1 and b = 2. Substituting into the first equation, we find that a = 2 and
b = 1, so we have determined that
√ √
9 + 4 5 = (2 + 5)2

and thus that

√ √
q
9+4 5=2+ 5
For the second square root, we can use an√analogous method, but because the
expression under the square root – 30−10 5 – contains a √ minus sign, we should
assume it is the square of something which looks like c − d 5. If we square this,
we find √ √
(c − d 5)2 = c2 + 5d2 − 2cd 5
√
and this will equal 30 − 10 5 provided that

c2 + 5d2 = 30
2cd = 10

and if, from the second equation, cd = 5 and c and d are positive integers,
then there are only two possibilities: c = 5 and d = 1 or c = 1 and d = 5.
Substituting into the first equation, we find that c = 5 and d = 1, so we have
shown that √ √
30 − 10 5 = (5 − 5)2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 108
and thus that
√ √
q
30 − 10 5 = 5 − 5
Finally, using the above,
√ √ √ √
q q
9 + 4 5 + 30 − 10 5 = 2 + 5 + 5 − 5
=7

11.6 Quadratics in Data Sufficiency

When quadratics appear in Data Sufficiency questions, often we do not care
what our solutions are; we only care whether we have exactly one solution,
or more than one. So it often is not necessary to factor completely. In the
most common situation, especially common in Word Problems and Geometry
problems, we produce a quadratic equation from one statement, where we know
the solution must be positive. In that case, as the solution below illustrates,
factoring is often completely unnecessary:
Sample Question 61. The seats at the Rio Theater are arranged in rows, with
the same number of seats in each row. If there are 600 seats in total in the Theater,
how many seats are there in each row?
1) If one seat was added to each row, there would be 624 seats in total in the
Theater.
2) If one seat was removed from each row, the number of rows would be equal to
the number of seats in one row.
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 61. Using Statement 1 alone, by adding one seat to each row, the
total number of seats increases by 24. So there must be 24 rows of seats, and
thus
600
= 25
24
seats in each row. So Statement 1 is sufficient.
Using Statement 2 alone, suppose we have r rows and s seats in each row. We
know rs = 600. Statement 2 tells us that r = s − 1. So by substitution, we have

(s − 1)(s) = 600
2
s − s − 600 = 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 109
Of course we could factor here to find the value of s. But that is unnecessary;
we know we are looking for two numbers with a product of −600, so one of
those numbers will be positive, the other negative. The factorization will look
something like this:
(s + a)(s − b) = 0
where a and b are positive. So one of our solutions will turn out to be positive,
and the other will be negative. Since s must be a positive number, we’ll discard
that negative solution in the end anyway, so there’s no reason to bother finding
it. Statement 2 will yield just one solution for s, so it is sufficient.
The answer is D.
There are other circumstances in DS where we can avoid completely factor-
ing. This is especially useful when the factorization would be hard to find:
Sample Question 62. If k > 0, what is the value of k?
√
2 k 2 1
1) k − − =0
4 4
√ 1
2) k 2 − k 2 + = 0
2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 62. The factorization of the quadratic in Statement 1 is not altogether
easy to find, but we don’t need it. Since, when we factor, we will find two
−1
numbers that multiply to , one of our solutions will be positive, and the
4
other will be negative. Since we know k > 0, we’ll discard the negative solution,
leaving us with one positive solution only. So Statement 1 is sufficient.
For Statement 2, we cannot apply the same reasoning, since the two numbers
we’ll look for when factoring will have the same sign. But again we only care
how many solutions the quadratic has. When we factor, either we will find two
1
different numbers which multiply to , in which case we will have two different
2
1
solutions, or we will find two identical numbers that multiply to , in which
2
case we will have only one solution. So that’s the lone thing we need to check:
is the quadratic in Statement 2 just equal to a single factor times itself, so is it
equal to the square of a single factor. If it were, then that factor would need to
1 1
be (k − √ ), in order to get the + when we multiply out. So we can check if
2 2
that is the correct factorization by checking what we get in front of the k term

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 110
when we expand:
    
1 1 2 1 1 1
k− √ k− √ =k − √ +√ k+
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 1
=k − √ k+
2 2
√ 1
= k 2 − 2k +
2
so this does in fact equal the quadratic in the question, and the quadratic in
Statement 2 does have a unique solution. So each Statement is sufficient alone,
and the answer is D.

11.7 Factoring with Larger Coefficients

Test takers often are concerned about how to factor quadratics when the number
in front of the x2 is not ‘1’. In general (meaning if you just invent random
numbers) it can be very hard to factor a quadratic – you normally would need
to use something called the ‘quadratic formula’. You never need to use that
on the GMAT, however, so there are only a few situations where you might
genuinely need to factor a quadratic that begins with, say, 3x2 or 16x2 . From
the simplest situation to the most complicated:

• a quadratic may only appear to include a 3x2 term, but it may be possible
to get down to x2 . For example, if you see this:

3x2 − 39x + 126 = 0

then we can divide both sides of the equation by 3 to get

x2 − 13x + 42 = 0

which is now a standard quadratic that we can factor, to get (x−6)(x−7) =

0.
• the quadratic may be in one of the familiar factoring patterns, and even
though we see a 4x2 term, say, we might be able to factor by noticing the
quadratic is in the form: x2 −y 2 = (x+y)(x−y), or x2 +2xy+y 2 = (x+y)2 ,
or x2 − 2xy + y 2 = (x − y)2 . So if we see

4x2 − 20x + 25 = 0

then this is in the x2 − 2xy + y 2 pattern (that both 4x2 and 25 are squares
is a clue that we should check that this quadratic matches one of the
factoring patterns), and we can factor this to get

(2x − 5)2 = 0
5
and x = .
2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 111
 • if a quadratic has a large number in front of the x2 , but ends in ‘+1’, it is
just as easy to factor as a quadratic that begins with x2 . So if we have

15x2 + 8x + 1 = 0

notice that when we factor, we’ll need two numbers to multiply together
to give ‘1’. Since all our signs are positive here, we have no choice, if our
numbers will be integers: they both need to be 1. So our factorization
will look like:
(ax + 1)(bx + 1)
where a and b will multiply to 15 and add to 8. So they are 3 and 5, and
we have
(3x + 1)(5x + 1) = 0
−1 −1
and either x = or x = .
3 5
• the quadratic may not be reducible to any simpler situation, but still might
only admit so few possibilities that we can still factor without a formula.
For example, if we needed to factor this quadratic:

5a2 + 8a + 3

then it is still practical to factor by hand, because the numbers at either

end, 5 and 3, are both prime. So we have very few possibilities to consider
– if we will only use positive integers (since our signs are all positive), then
to get 5a2 by multiplying two terms with a in them together, we must use
a and 5a. So our factorization will look like

(5a + something)(a + something)

We know these two numbers at the end also must multiply together to
give us 3. Again, since 3 is prime, we have very few possibilities: we must
be multiplying 1 and 3, but the one thing we don’t know is where the 1
goes and where the 3 goes. So we need to check: we can first try putting
the 1 in the factor with the 5a, to get

(5a + 1)(a + 3)

To check if this is the correct factorization, we need to multiply this back

out, to see if we correctly get the ‘8a’ in the middle. But if we multiply
this out, we get 15a + a = 16a in the middle, so this is not the correct
factorization. The only other possibility (involving integers) is

(5a + 3)(a + 1)

and multiplying this out does indeed give us 5a2 + 8a + 3, so this is the
correct factorization.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 112
 1
Sample Question 63. If a + b = , and
6
1 1
+ = −1
a b
what is the value of |a − b|?
1
A)
6
1
B)
3
1
C)
2
5
D)
6
7
E)
6
Solution 63. We can rewrite the first equation with b on one side and then
substitute into the second equation:
1
a+b=
6
1
b= −a
6
Before substituting this value for b, it is helpful to rewrite the second equation
to get rid of fractions:
1 1
+ = −1
 a b
1 1
(ab) + = −ab
a b
b + a = −ab

and if we now substitute for b, we have

b + a = −ab
 
1 1
− a + a = −a −a
6 6
1 −a
= + a2
6 6
a 1
a2 − − = 0
6 6
6a2 − a − 1 = 0

To factor this quadratic, we know we need two numbers with a product of −1.
These numbers will be 1 and −1. We also need two terms that multiply to give

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 113
us 6a2 . There are a few possibilities (6a times a, or 3a times 2a), but since we
need a sum of −a, the numbers will likely need to be close together. So we can
see if either of these candidates is the correct factorization by multiplying them
out:
(2a + 1)(3a − 1) = 6a2 + 3a − 2a − 1 = 6a2 + a − 1
which is not correct, or

(2a − 1)(3a + 1) = 6a2 + 2a − 3a − 1 = 6a2 − a − 1

which is identical to the quadratic we were trying to factor. So either 2a−1 = 0,

1 −1 1
and a = , or 3a+1 = 0, and a = . When a = , we find by substituting that
2 3 2
−1 −1 1 5
b= and when a = we find that b = , and in either case, |a−b| = .
3 3 2 6

11.8 The Quadratic Formula

There is a formula that you can use to solve any quadratic, called the ‘quadratic
formula’, but you will never need it on the GMAT. It is complicated, so is
difficult to remember, and is considerably more time-consuming to use than
ordinary factoring. Its main value is that it lets you solve extremely complicated
quadratic equations, but you never see those on the GMAT. So I would not
recommend memorizing it. But people often want to know it anyway, so I’ve
included it here.
If you have a quadratic equation ax2 + bx + c = 0, then the two solutions
for x are given by: √
−b ± b2 − 4ac
x=
2a
(where we get one solution by replacing the ‘±’ with a ‘+’, and the other by
replacing it with a ‘−’). You will literally never need this formula on the GMAT.
There is, however, one part of the formula can be helpful to know: the
b2 − 4ac under the square root sign, which is sometimes called the discriminant
of the quadratic. If b2 − 4ac is negative, then we have a negative under the root,
which is undefined; this means the original equation
√ has no solutions. If b2 −4ac
2
is equal to zero, then when we add or subtract b − 4ac, the answer will be the
same in both cases; this means the original equation has exactly one solution for
x. And if b2 −4ac > 0, the equation will have two solutions for x. To summarize:

The equation ax2 + bx + c = 0

• has no solutions for x if b2 − 4ac < 0

• has exactly one solution for x if b2 − 4ac = 0

• has two different solutions for x if b2 − 4ac > 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 114
 You will never need to know the above, since there will always be another
method available for a GMAT question, but if you did know this, you would
have the option when seeing a quadratic in Data Sufficiency to calculate b2 −4ac
to determine if you will get one solution or two different solutions.

11.9 Limits
There is one last possibility, not mentioned above – you might encounter a
complicated quadratic, but one where you do not need to factor to answer the
question. The sample question below is one example.

Sample Question 64. If x > 105 , the value of

7x2 + 19x + 44
11x3 + 25x2 + 30x
is closest to which of the following:
A) 0
7
B)
25
7
C)
11
77
D)
115
35
E)
33
Solution 64. If x is a very large number, the value of x3 will be enormously
bigger than the value of x2 , or the value of x. So in this question, since the
denominator contains 11x3 but the numerator contains no x3 term, the denom-
inator will be vastly larger than the numerator, and the best estimate of the
overall value of the fraction will be 0.
Note that the question above might appear to be a factoring question at first
glance, but it is one of the rare question types that appears to require factoring,
but which is really just about estimation. In its more common version, it asks
about a fraction where the highest power in the numerators and denominators
are equal, as in the example below:
Sample Question 65. If n > 1010 , the value of

3n2 + 2n + 1
2n2 + 48n + 100
is closest to which of the following:
1
A)
25

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 115
 1
B)
10
3
C)
2
D) 1010

E) 1.5 × 1010

Solution 65. If n is enormous, then n2 is vastly bigger than n. So if we only

want an estimate, we can ignore all the n terms (and the 1 in the numerator
and the 100 in the denominator) because they will barely affect the result, and
the value of the fraction will be closest to
3n2 3
2
=
2n 2

If you have ever studied calculus, you may recognize that the questions above
are testing the calculus concept of a limit in a simplified way, so simplified that
no calculus knowledge is required to solve them.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 116
12 Inequalities
12.1 Introduction
An inequality tells you that one quantity is larger than another. For example,
the inequality

x>y
says that x is larger than y. Of course if x is larger than y, then y is certainly
smaller than x, so the above inequality can also be written

y<x
The inequalities above are called strict inequalities, because the left and
right sides cannot be exactly equal. In algebraic questions about inequalities on
the GMAT, you will almost always see strict inequalities. Some inequalities are
not strict, for example, the inequality:

a≥b
says that a is greater than or possibly equal to b. This type of inequality only
rarely appears in GMAT algebra questions, so few of the examples below will use
non-strict inequalities. There a few minor issues to be aware of with non-strict
inequalities, and these are discussed in section 1.9.

12.2 Simplifying
We can rewrite inequalities in some of the same ways that we solve equations:

• You can always add or subtract things on both sides of an inequality, just
as you can with an equation. So for example, if you saw this inequality:

2x < x + 7

you could certainly subtract x from both sides, to find that

x<7

Note that you don’t need to think about signs here. You can safely add
or subtract anything on both sides, whether it’s positive or negative.
• You can multiply or divide both sides of an inequality by a positive num-
ber. So if you have the following:

3x > −12

you can divide both sides by 3 to find

x > −4

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 117
 • You can also multiply or divide both sides of an inequality by a negative
number, but if you do, you must reverse the inequality. That is, you must
change ‘>’ into ‘<’ or vice versa. So if you see this inequality:

−5a < −25

you may divide both sides by −5, but you must reverse the inequality
when you do, to get:
a>5

• As a consequence, you must be extremely careful about multiplying or

dividing by unknowns – if you do not know if that unknown is positive
or negative, you won’t know if you need to reverse the inequality. For
example, if you see the inequality

ab > b

it may be tempting to divide by b on both sides, to conclude that a > 1.

But with no information about b, we cannot do this. If b > 0, then it is
indeed true that a > 1. But if b < 0, we must reverse the inequality when
we divide by b on both sides, and in this case, we find a < 1. So unless
we know the sign of b, all we know is that one of two things is true: either
b > 0 and a > 1, or b < 0 and a < 1.
• Similarly if you know that
c
>1
d
you cannot multiply both sides by d to conclude that c > d, unless you
know that d > 0. If instead d is negative, then we need to reverse the
inequality when we multiply by d, and we’d find that c < d.

Several GMAT prep books claim that ‘you can solve inequalities just like
you solve equations, except you must reverse the inequality when multiplying
or dividing by a negative’. This is not true – and is especially misleading, since
many GMAT DS questions include trap statements that appear to be sufficient
if you solve your inequalities as if they were just like equations. Besides adding,
subtracting, multiplying and dividing on both sides of an inequality, there are
very few things we can safely do, at least when negative numbers might be
involved.
So for example, you can do all of the things listed below to both sides of an
equation. You can also do all of them to both sides of an inequality when all of
the quantities in the inequality are certain to be positive. But none of them is
correct to do if some of the quantities in the inequality might be negative:

• square both sides. For example

−2 < 1

is true, but (−2)2 = 4 is not less than 12 = 1.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 118
 • take the absolute value of both sides. We can use the same inequality
as above, −2 < 1 is true, but | − 2| = 2 is not less than |1| = 1
• cross-multiply. For example, the inequality
1 1
<
−2 2
is true, but if we cross-multiply, the left side would become 2, which is not
less than −2, what we’d get on the right side.
• multiply two inequalities. With two equations, it is perfectly fine to
multiply the left sides of each, and the right sides of each, and set those
products to be equal. That is, if

a=b
c=d

then ac = bd is true. But you cannot do this with inequalities if some

quantities might be negative. For example these inequalities are true:

−1 < 1
−3 < 2

but if we multiply the two inequalities, what we find is false (3 is not less
than 2).

And then there are other things we are always allowed to do when solving
equations which we cannot do at all with inequalities, even with positive num-
bers, or at least not unless you memorize a lot of obscure rules and technicalities.
For example, all of the following are always safe to do with equations (at least
when everything is nonzero), but are not correct to do with inequalities:

• take reciprocals on both sides. The inequality

1 1
<
3 2
is true, but if we take reciprocals on both sides, the left side is 3, which
is not less than the reciprocal of the right side, which is 2. Sometimes
people remember a “rule” that you can take reciprocals if you reverse the
inequality. That is correct if your numbers are all positive, but is not
correct when you might have negative numbers:
−1 1
<
2 2
is true, and −2 < 2 is also true – we do not want to reverse the inequality
here.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 119
 • raise both sides to a negative exponent. For example
2<3
is true, but if we raise both sides to the power −2, the left side becomes
1 1
2−2 = , which is not less than 3−2 = .
4 9
• subtract one inequality from another. When we solve two equations
in two unknowns, we very often subtract one equation from another to
solve for a single unknown – for example, to solve
2x + y = 17
x + y = 11
we can just subtract the second equation from the first to immediately
find x = 6. But with two inequalities, we cannot safely subtract one from
the other. For example, these inequalities are true:
5>3
4>1
but if we subtract the bottom inequality from the top one, we’d arrive at
“1 > 2”, which is clearly false.
The purpose of the lists above is to illustrate just how different equations
and inequalities can be. We can do almost anything we like with equations,
provided we do the same thing to both sides. But with inequalities, we can
only safely do a very small number of things – we can add, subtract, multiply
and divide on both sides (provided we know the sign of the quantity we are
multiplying or dividing by), and very little else. So with rare exceptions, when
rewriting inequalities, you should only add, subtract, multiply and divide on
both sides, because those are the only frequently useful operations for which
there are simple rules. Do not try to take any of the shortcuts you might take
when solving equations.
There would be no reason to memorize any of the exceptions above, but it
is worth seeing them, and understanding why the exceptions occur. Most often
they arise because of negative numbers, which will be a theme throughout this
discussion of inequalities. Two of the simplifications discussed above are used
often enough that is worthwhile understanding when they can be used with
inequalities:
• Sometimes we see an inequality which compares an unknown to a positive
number, so something like:
x>3
and when the left and right sides of an inequality are both positive, then
you can always raise both sides to a positive integer exponent. So if the
above inequality is true, then this inequality
x2 > 9

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 120
 is also true, as is
x3 > 27
and so on. Note however if you start from the inequality x2 > 9, it is not
correct to rewrite that as x > 3 – we cannot do this in reverse. If x2 > 9,
it is certainly possible that x < −3 (for example, x could be −5).
• If you see an inequality like the following:
w y
<
x z
it may be very tempting to cross-multiply, if that is a shortcut you often
use with equations. When we see the equation
a c
=
b d
it is perfectly correct to cross-multiply to get ad = bc. When you are
doing this, what you are really doing is multiplying, in one step, both
sides of the equation by both denominators. That is, in the equation
above, when we cross-multiply, we’re really multiplying both sides by bd,
and the cross-multiplication shortcut takes care of the cancellation for us:
a c
=
a b d c
(bd) = (bd)
b d
abd bcd
=
b d
ad = bc

Notice then that we never truly need to cross-multiply. It saves time, but
since it is not a correct thing to do with inequalities, the safest thing to
do, when you see an inequality like this:
w y
<
x z
is to either multiply by x on both sides, then by y, if you know the signs of
those unknowns, or to multiply by xy on both sides if you know the sign
of xy. But if you don’t know any of the signs of x, y or xy, you cannot do
any kind of multiplication or cross-multiplication here.
• In a later chapter, we discuss the (very important) rules for solving 2
inequalities in 2 unknowns.

12.3 Transitivity
There is a further property of inequalities that we use all the time, often without
realizing it, called the transitive property. This property simply says that if

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 121
a > b, and b > c, then a > c must be true. Sometimes we write the first two
inequalities as a 3-part inequality, as follows:
a>b>c
We often use this property in word problems, without perhaps even noticing
we’re using it. For example, if you know Amy is taller than Baran, and Baran
is taller than Chao, we’d naturally conclude that Amy is taller than Chao.
Algebraically we are just using the transitive property above.
This property is often tested in somewhat tricky ways on the GMAT, tricky
because we sometimes need to notice that we can use it, as below.
Sample Question 66. Is a > 0?
1) a − 1 > b + 1
2) a + b − 1 > a − b + 1
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 66. If we add 1 on both sides of the inequality in Statement 1, we
find a > b + 2. We know nothing about b, so this alone does not help us to
decide if a is positive, and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Rewriting Statement 2 we find:
a+b−1>a−b+1
b − 1 > −b + 1
2b > 2
b>1
which tells us nothing about a, so Statement 2 is not sufficient.
Taking both Statements together, we learned that a > b + 2 from Statement 1,
and that b > 1 from Statement 2. Since b + 2 > b must be true (since b + 2 is
exactly 2 greater than b), we have the following:
a>b+2>b>1>0
so a > 0 is true, and the answer is C.
Sample Question 67. If x, y and z are positive integers, is x > z?
1) x − y > 0
2) x − z > y
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 122
Solution 67. We can rewrite Statement 1 to learn that x > y, but since we
know nothing about z, that does not help us answer the question of whether
x > z is true.
From Statement 2, we know x − z > y. But we also know that the three
unknowns are positive, and in particular we know that y > 0. So x − z > y > 0
is true, and by looking at the first and last terms in this 3-part inequality, we
see that x − z > 0, and x > z. So Statement 2 is sufficient, and the answer is
B.

12.4 Negatives and Positives

Most GMAT inequalities questions are testing your understanding of negative
numbers. Negative numbers account for most of the exceptions and traps in
inequality questions because the negative number line is the ‘mirror reflection’
of the positive number line, reflected through 0. As in any mirror reflection,
everything is ‘backwards’ on the negative part of the number line. For example,
3 is larger than 2 (or on the number line, 3 is to the right of 2), but if we make
these numbers negative, −3 is less than −2 (or on the number line, −3 is to the
left of −2).

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

Because of this, many inequalities which will be true for positive numbers
will be false for negatives.
Sample Question 68. If x is a nonzero integer, which of the following must be
true:
I) 3 < 3 + x
II) −x < 0
III) x < 2x

A) none
B) I only
C) III only
D) II and III
E) I, II and III
Solution 68. All three of the inequalities might appear to be true just at a quick
glance. And each is true when x is positive. But if you solve each algebraically,
in each case you will find they mean x > 0. Each is false if x is negative, and
since x can be negative here, the answer is A.
The three roman numeral items above are simple examples of inequalities
that will appear to be true to a test taker who only considers positive numbers,
but which are false if you consider negatives. As a consequence, we need to think

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 123
about negatives constantly when working with inequalities. In fact, negatives
are so important that often that is the only thing we need to think about when
solving an inequality question: are quantities negative or positive.
If you solved each of the three inequalities in the question above algebraically,
it was not too difficult to see that each inequality was only true for positive values
of x. But when there are two or more unknowns, things can be trickier:
Sample Question 69. Is a > b?
1) a > 1.5b
2) a > 0.5b
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 69. Statement 1 will appear to be sufficient to someone who only
considers positive values of a and b. If b is positive then 1.5b > b, so from
Statement 1 we would know that a > 1.5b > b, and a > b would be true. But
if b is negative, then it is not true that 1.5b > b. Instead, 1.5b < b is true, and
if we know only that a > 1.5b, it is possible that 1.5b < a < b is true. For
example, we might have b = −4, and a = −5. Then a > 1.5b is true, but a > b
is not. So Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient alone, since certainly a could be larger than b, but
we could, if b is positive, also have 0.5b < a < b. So if b = 4, and a = 3, then
a > 0.5b is true, but a > b is not.
Taking the two statements together, either b is positive, in which case 1.5b >
b > 0.5b, and then we know from Statement 1 that a > b, or b is negative, in
which case 0.5b > b > 1.5b, and then we know from Statement 2 that a > b. So
in either case, a > b must be true, and the answer is C.

12.5 Products
12.5.1 Fundamentals
Many GMAT inequality questions test if you understand when a product will
be positive or negative. Suppose you know that

xy > 0

Then it must be that either x and y are both positive, or x and y are both
negative. In other words, x and y have the same sign.
If instead you know that
xy < 0
then it must be that one of x or y is positive, and the other is negative. In other
words, x and y have opposite signs.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 124
 Many questions instead tell you that an algebraic fraction is positive or
negative. The inequality
x
>0
y
means that x and y have the same sign, and the inequality
x
<0
y
means that x and y have opposite signs.
If you compare the situation with products with the situation with fractions,
x
you might notice that the inequalities xy > 0 and > 0 both mean that x and
y
y have the same sign. That is, they mean exactly the same thing. Similarly the
x
inequalities xy < 0 and < 0 mean exactly the same thing. So if you see the
y
x
inequality < 0, you can, if you like, rewrite that as xy < 0. Occasionally that
y
lets us do some additional algebra. So this inequality:
x−2
<0
x+2
means that x − 2 and x + 2 have opposite signs, so it means exactly what this
inequality means:
(x − 2)(x + 2) < 0
But this is a difference of squares, so we can rewrite it easily:

(x − 2)(x + 2) < 0
x2 − 4 < 0
x2 < 4

which means that −2 < x < 2 (as will be discussed below).

12.5.2 Quadratics in Inequalities

One situation in which we always need to think about positive or negative
products is when working with inequalities containing quadratics. For example,
if you saw this inequality:
x2 − 4x + 3 < 0
naturally, as we would with an equation, it would be useful to factor the
quadratic to get:
(x − 3)(x − 1) < 0
Now we have a product which is negative, so one factor must be negative, and
the other must be positive. Some people will then divide the problem into two
cases, one where the first factor is positive, and one where the second factor is
positive. That can be confusing, and there is no need to do it. Our factors are

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 125
x − 3 and x − 1. Notice that x − 3 is always less than x − 1. If exactly one of
these factors is negative, it must be the smaller factor, so x − 3 < 0 is true, and
x < 3, and x − 1 > 0 is true, and x > 1. So the inequality above means that
1 < x < 3.
Sample Question 70. Is k > 6?
k−7
1) <0
k − 11
2) k 2 − 13k + 40 < 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 70. The inequality in Statement 1 means the same thing as (k −
7)(k − 11) < 0. One factor is positive, the other negative, and since k − 11 is
smaller than k − 7, it must be k − 11 which is negative. So k − 11 < 0, and
k < 11, and k − 7 > 0, and k > 7. So Statement 1 tells us 7 < k < 11, which
guarantees that k > 6 is true, and the statement is sufficient.
We can factor the quadratic in Statement 2:
k 2 − 13k + 40 < 0
(k − 8)(k − 5) < 0
and since this product is negative, the two factors on the left have opposite
signs. Since k − 8 is smaller than k − 5, it must be that k − 8 < 0, and k < 8,
and that k − 5 > 0 and k > 5. So 5 < k < 8, and we cannot be sure if k > 6 is
true (since k might equal 5.5 for example).
The answer is A.
It is worth also seeing the opposite situation, where we know a product of
two factors is positive, so for example:
(a − 7)(a − 4) > 0
Then the two factors have the same sign. Here we do genuinely have two cases.
Either both factors are positive, or both are negative. If both are positive, then
the smaller factor, a−7, must be positive (and if it is, the larger factor must also
be positive), so a > 7 must be true. If both are negative, then the larger factor,
a − 4, must be negative (which will ensure the smaller factor is also negative),
and a < 4 must be true. So the inequality means that either a > 7 or a < 4.

12.5.3 Boundary Points

If you compare, in the example above, the solution with the original inequality,
you might notice that the roots of the quadratic (the values of a that make the

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 126
quadratic equal to zero) appear as the endpoints of the solution sets for a – we
began with the inequality (a − 7)(a − 4) > 0, and the roots of the left side are
4 and 7, and we found our solutions were a > 7 and a < 4. This is always true
when solving a quadratic inequality. Because of this, it is also possible to use a
‘number picking’ strategy when solving any quadratic inequality, or inequality
with an algebraic fraction, provided you have zero on one side. Suppose we
want to know when this inequality will be true:

(a − 4.5)(a − 6.5)
<0
a − 5.5
We can first identify the values of a which either make the left side equal to zero,
or which make the left side undefined (make the denominator equal to zero).
Those values are 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5. These are the potential ‘boundary points’ of
the solutions for a. If we draw them on a number line:

4.5 5.5 6.5

then we have divided the number line into four separate ‘zones’ (to the left of
4.5, between 4.5 and 5.5, and so on). For each of these ‘zones’, the inequality
will either be true for every value in the zone, or false for every value in the
zone. By testing any one value strictly within each zone, we will learn if the
inequality is true or false for that zone. So here, we can test the values a = 4,
a = 5, a = 6, and a = 7, for example. We find the inequality is true when
a = 4, so is true whenever a < 4.5. We also find it is true when a = 6, so is true
whenever 5.5 < a < 6.5. But it is false for a = 5 and a = 7, so the inequality
means that either a < 4.5 or 5.5 < a < 6.5. Notice when you plug in each
number, there is no need to calculate the value of the left side numerically – you
only care if it is positive or negative. So for example when plugging in a = 4,
you need only notice that all three factors are negative, so the left side will be
negative.
This ‘number picking’ method is sometimes called a ‘critical point’ or ‘bound-
ary point’ method. It is slightly less flexible than the previous method above,
where we analyzed the signs of each factor, but only slightly. In most questions,
it won’t matter which of the two methods above you use, so you can choose
whichever you prefer.

12.5.4 Comparing Powers of x

The boundary point method is the method I prefer for one common type of
inequality: an inequality with a simple power of x on both sides. Each of the
inequalities below has a power of x on either side:

x2 < x

x > x7

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 127
 1
> x2
x3
1
In the last example, the left side, is also a simple power of x, since it is equal
x3
−3
to x . For any inequality of this type, the only numbers that can be ‘boundary
points’ are −1, 0 and 1. So for any inequality like the above, you can always
use the boundary point method with this number line:

−1 0 1

−1 1
So you could test, for example, −2, , and 2 for any such inequality.
2 2
Sample Question 71. Is x < 0 ?
1) x7 < x5
2) x5 < x8
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 71. In each statement we find an inequality comparing two powers of
x. One useful observation is that we can always divide both sides of an inequal-
ity by x2 (or any other even power of x), because x2 can never be negative, so
we do not need to worry about whether we should reverse the inequality. So we
can divide by x4 on both sides of Statement 1 to get x3 < x. We can now apply
the boundary point method described above:

−1 0 1
If we test one value from within each of the four zones above, then if the in-
equality is true for that value, it will be true for the entire zone containing that
value. We find the inequality x3 < x is false when x = 2, so is always false if
1
x > 1. It is true when x = , so it is true whenever 0 < x < 1. It is false
2
−1
when x = , so it is always false when −1 < x < 0. It is true when x = −2,
2
so it is true whenever x < −1. So Statement 1 tells us that either x < −1, or
0 < x < 1. Since x can be positive or negative, Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Again in Statement 2, we can divide both sides by x4 , to get x < x4 . This will
clearly be true for any negative value of x (since the left side will be negative,
1
which must be less than the right side, which will be positive). If we test x = ,
2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 128
the inequality is false, so it is not true when 0 < x < 1. If we test x = 2, the
inequality is true, so it is always true when x > 1. So Statement tells us that
either x < 0 or 1 < x, and is not sufficient.
Taking both Statements together, we know from Statement 1 that

x < −1 or 0 < x < 1

and from Statement 2 that

x < 0 or 1 < x
If we need x to satisfy both statements, it must belong to both of these sets
of solutions. So when we combine the two statements, we are really looking at
where our two sets of solutions overlap. They overlap when x < −1, but for no
positive values at all. So using both statements, we learn x < −1 must be true,
and thus that x < 0, and the answer is C.

12.5.5 Difference of Squares

Lastly, there is one simple variation on the quadratic inequalities above that
appears so frequently it is worthwhile learning how to solve it instantly. Often
we see x2 on one side of an inequality, and a number on the other, for example:

x2 < 36

You could solve this using the techniques above, by getting 0 on one side, and
factoring. Then the left side becomes x2 − 36 = (x + 6)(x − 6), and you will
find the solution is −6 < x < 6. But you might be able to see in advance that
if any positive number k satisfies this inequality, then −k must also satisfy the
inequality, because we are squaring x, so any negative sign will be ‘erased’. So
the negative solutions to this inequality will just mirror the positive ones, and
if you can see that for positive values the inequality means x < 6, then you can
know that for negative values, −6 < x. Conversely if you know

x2 > 36

then either x > 6, or x < −6.

When you have any even power of x on one side of an inequality, and a
number on the other, the negative solution range will mirror the positive solution
range. When you have an odd power of x on one side, and a number on the
other, the situation is even simpler. If you see:

x3 < 64

then you can just take the cube root of both sides to get x < 4, since any
negative value will clearly satisfy this inequality.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 129
12.5.6 Products of more than two factors
Occasionally in questions we see products of many factors, for example:

abcde > 0

A product of several nonzero factors will be positive if all of the negatives are
‘paired up’, because then all the negatives will cancel. So you will have a positive
product when you have an even number of negatives. You will get a negative
product when you have an odd number of negatives. So if abcde > 0 is true,
then we must have 0, 2 or 4 negative numbers on the left side.

Sample Question 72. Is ae < 0?

1) abcd > 0
2) bcde < 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 72. Neither statement could be sufficient alone, because using State-
ment 1 we have no information at all about e, and using Statement 2 alone we
have no information at all about a.
Using both statements together, if we multiply abcd by bcde, the statements
tell us we would be multiplying a positive number by a negative number, so we
must get a negative result:

(abcd)(bcde) < 0
ab2 c2 d2 e < 0

but b2 , c2 and d2 are all squares, so must be positive. Since we must have an
odd number of negatives for this product of five terms to be negative, exactly
one of a or e must be negative, and the other must be positive, and ae < 0 must
be true. Or you could just divide both sides by b2 c2 d2 , since we know that must
be positive, to find ae < 0. The answer is C.

12.6 Thinking Conceptually

To understand what ‘thinking conceptually’ might mean, it may be useful to
begin with an example. Suppose we want to know what the solutions are to the
inequality:
x2 < x
We have already discussed several ways to solve this inequality:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 130
 • This is a comparison of two powers of x, so we can use the ‘boundary point’
method discussed above. That is, we have a reliable ‘number picking’
method we can use for this type of inequality. Whenever we are comparing
two simple powers of x, our boundary points are always −1, 0 and 1, and
we can test values in each of the four resulting ranges on the number line
to get a solution.
• Or we can get 0 on the right side (that is, get x2 − x < 0), and factor,
to get (x)(x − 1), and then we will have a product which is negative. So
we know the smaller term, x − 1, is negative, and the larger term, x, is
positive, from which we get the solution.

• Or we can use algebra, with cases. We can first assume x > 0, and divide
by x on both sides. Then we’d find x < 1, which gives the solution set
0 < x < 1. Then we can assume x < 0, and divide by x on both sides,
reversing the inequality when we do, since we are dividing by a negative.
Then we find x > 1. This contradicts our assumption that x < 0, so there
are no solutions when x is negative, and we find the only solutions are
0 < x < 1.
Each of these solutions works, and none is particularly better than the others,
so it is really a matter of personal preference which method one chooses to use.
But there is a better approach than any of the above methods. If instead of
applying a method by rote, we instead pause to think about what terms in the
inequality are positive and negative, we can often discover a much faster way to
analyze an inequality. Here we know:

x2 < x

But x2 is a square – it must be positive. And x is larger than this positive

number, so x must also be positive, and we know we only have solutions when
0 < x. Since x is positive, we can safely divide on both sides by x to find that
x < 1, so the solutions are 0 < x < 1.
By first asking what quantities are positive or negative, we avoided consid-
ering any cases. That happens often enough (not always, but often), and in
complicated questions saves so much time, that it is almost always worthwhile
to spend a few seconds thinking conceptually before embarking on any purely
algebraic solution.
In order to think conceptually about quantities in an inequality, there are
a few important things to understand, in addition to understanding when a
product or fraction will be positive or negative. First, we can recognize when
certain algebraic expressions must be positive:

• when anything is raised to an even power, the result will always be positive

• when we take the absolute value of a quantity, the result will always be
positive

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 131
(as an aside, the above is false on a technicality – they technically ought to say
‘will always be positive or zero’. But it is never important to consider zero in
inequality questions, since almost all inequalities rule it out as a solution from
the outset – for example, if you see the inequality abc2 > 0, it is impossible
for any unknown to equal zero. So zero does not create any special cases or
exceptions in strict inequality questions, and there is no need to be concerned
about it).
To see how the above might be useful, if you saw an inequality like the
following:
ab2 c4 d6 < 0
if you recognize that all of the even powers on the left side are positive, you can
see that a < 0. Or to give a possibly more difficult example, if you know that

x > |0.5x + 0.1|

then since the right side of this inequality must be positive, we know x is larger
than some positive number, so x must be positive. But if x is positive, then
0.5x + 0.1 will always be positive. So on the right side, we’re taking the absolute
value of a positive quantity, and the absolute value is thus not doing anything,
and we can erase it. So we find:

x > 0.5x + 0.1

0.5x > 0.1
x > 0.2

In the solution above, we used another important and fundamental principle,

one that we’ve used several times already, in particular when solving quadratics:

• If you add a positive number to x, the result is bigger than x. So for

example, x + 3.3 is larger than x.
• If you add a negative number to x (or subtract a positive), the result is
smaller than x. So for example, x − 0.7 is smaller than x.

Because of the above, we can often tell, when we see a sum or subtraction in
an inequality or equation, that one important quantity is larger than another.
The question below illustrates why this may be important:
Sample Question 73. Is x > y?
1) x − y > 0.4
2) x − y > (x − y)2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 132
Solution 73. We can rewrite Statement 1 to more closely resemble the question,
by getting y on the right side:

x > y + 0.4

But y + 0.4 is larger than y. So from the above, we can be certain that x > y
is true, and Statement 1 is sufficient.
In Statement 2, the right side is a square, so is positive. The inequality tells us
x − y is bigger than that positive value, so x − y must be positive, and x − y > 0,
so x > y.
The answer is D.

Notice when we analyzed Statement 1 in the solution above, the exact value
0.4 on the right side of the inequality did not matter at all – any positive
number would have given us the information we needed. Normally when solving
equations, the exact value of each number matters a lot. But when solving
inequalities, sometimes they do not matter much at all. So in that sense, the
solution above illustrates another conceptual principle:

• When solving inequality questions, think in terms of inequalities.

There is one other concept which can often be used when two expressions
in the same inequality question look similar. Notice if you take any sum or
subtraction, for example:
a−b−c+d
If we make this entire expression negative, it becomes equal to

−(a − b − c + d) = −a + b + c − d

but notice that when we make the original expression negative, we simply ‘flip’
every sign, so every ‘+’ becomes a ‘−’ and every ‘−’ becomes a ‘+’. So if
two expressions (involving addition and subtraction) are identical, except have
exactly opposite signs everywhere, one is the negative of the other. In particular,
exactly one of the expressions is positive, and the other is negative.
This can be extremely useful in some DS questions. For example, suppose
you know that
1
<2−k
k−2
is true. There is no need for any algebra here. Notice that k − 2 and 2 − k are
negatives of each other (since 2 − k is the same thing as −k + 2). So one of them
is positive, and the other is negative. But the sign of k − 2 will be the sign of the
entire fraction on the left side. So one side of the inequality must be negative,
the other positive, and since positives are always larger than negatives, the right
side must be positive. So the inequality is true only when 2 − k > 0, or when
2 > k.
To summarize:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 133
 • If two sums appear identical, but with opposite signs, one is the negative
of the other
• In some inequality questions, the only thing you need to do is work out if
the left side is positive and if the right side is positive.

• If we find that one side is positive and the other negative, we know the
positive side must be the larger side, since positives are always bigger than
negatives.

12.7 Two inequalities, two unknowns

id 00157
We very often encounter two linear equations in two unknowns in GMAT
algebra, especially when solving word problems. When we have two equations
like the following:

x+y =7
x−y =3

then to solve for x, we would normally add the equations (to eliminate y), and
to solve for y we would normally subtract the equations (to eliminate x).
It is also possible to see two inequalities in two unknowns, and it is important
to understand what you are allowed to do in such a situation. Suppose instead
we had these inequalities:

x+y >7
x−y >3

The rules here are:

• You can always add two inequalities, provided the inequalities face in the
same direction.
• You can never subtract two inequalities.
So with the inequalities above, we could add them to find

2x > 10
x>5

We cannot, however, subtract them to eliminate x. In fact, y can be equal to

anything at all here, provided x is large. For example, if x = 1000, you can see
that y could be some large number like 900, or some very negative number like
−900. So from the two inequalities above, we can say something about x, but
nothing whatsoever about y.
While it is always correct to add two inequalities that face the same way,
it is only ever useful when you have two inequalities in two or more unknowns.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 134
With only one unknown, it will not be useful to add inequalities. But if you
do see two inequalities in two or more unknowns, unless you very quickly see
something else to do, you always should line up the inequalities and add them
together. You will always learn something that way, and very often it is the
only thing you need to do to get the answer.

Sample Question 74. If a, b and c are positive, is a > 5?

1) a + b + c > 19
2) b + c > 14
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 74. Neither statement is sufficient alone. Together, it might be tempt-
ing to subtract the second inequality from the first, which would appear to tell
us that a > 5. But subtracting inequalities is not a correct thing to do – if
a question is set up so you will appear to get the right answer by subtracting
inequalities, that is the trap in the question. Here a can be anything if b + c is
large. For example, if b + c = 100, then both inequalities are automatically true
for any positive value of a. The answer is E.

Sample Question 75. A shop sells pizza slices for $p each, and bottles of juice
for $j each. Asale bought two pizza slices and one bottle of juice, and Bengt bought
one pizza slice and two bottles of juice. Is p > 3?
1) The amount Asale spent was more than $2.50 greater than the amount Bengt
spent.
2) The amount Asale and Bengt spent combined was greater than $11.00
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 75. We know Asale spent 2p + j dollars, and Bengt spent p + 2j

dollars. Statement 1 tells us the difference in their expenditures was greater
than 2.50, so

2p + j − (p + 2j) > 2.50

2p + j − p − 2j > 2.50
p − j > 2.50

We cannot determine if p > 3 from this, since it might be that j is very small,
say 0.01, and p could then be just larger than 2.50.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 135
From Statement 2 we know the sum of their expenditures was greater than
11.00, so we know

2p + j + p + 2j > 11.00
3p + 3j > 11.00

but this is not sufficient, since p could be very large, or could be very small if j
is large.
Taking the two statements together, we have two inequalities in two unknowns:

p − j > 2.50
3p + 3j > 11.00

Adding these together will not eliminate j, which is what we want to achieve
here since the question asks about p. But if we multiply the first inequality by
3 first, then we will eliminate j when we add the two inequalities:

3p − 3j > 7.50
3p + 3j > 11.00
6p > 18.50
p > 3.08 . . .

so p > 3 is true and the two statements together are sufficient. The answer is
C.

Sample Question 76. Is xy > 24?

x
1) y > +2
3
x
2) y < + 1
2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 76. Neither Statement is sufficient alone, since using either statement
x and y can both be very large, or can be close to 0 (if x = 0, say).
Using both Statements, we can add the two inequalities, first rewriting State-

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 136
ment 2 so the inequalities face the same way:
x
y> +2
3
x
+1>y
2
x x
y+ +1> +2+y
2 3
x x
− >2−1
2 3
x
>1
6
x>6
x
So if both inequalities are true, then x > 6. Further, we know that y > + 2.
3
x 6
If x > 6, then it must be true that + 2 > + 2 = 4, so we also know that
3 3
y > 4. If x > 6 and y > 4, then xy > 24 must be true, and the answer is C.

12.8 Exponential Functions

There is one other situation that occasionally appears in GMAT questions,
and which has not been discussed above. We sometimes see inequalities with
exponents where the base is a number, and the exponent is, or contains, an
unknown. For example, we might see this inequality:

5x > 53

For the GMAT, there is only one rule worth learning for such situations:

If a > 1, and
ax > ay
then x > y.

So, for example, if you know that 5x > 53 , that means that x > 3.
On the GMAT, you will most often need this rule in situations where the
base is a positive integer, greater than 1. Since we can only use this rule when
the base is the same on both sides of the inequality, you would always try to
get the same base on both sides when bases are different, so if we knew that

42x−1 > 8x−3

we would first get the same base on both sides. It will always work to prime

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 137
factorize each base:

42x−1 > 8x−3

(22 )2x−1 > (23 )x−3
24x−2 > 23x−9
4x − 2 > 3x − 9
x > −7

Sample Question 77. For how many integers n is it true that 56n−1 < 252n+3 <
1252n+1 ?
A) none
B) one
C) two
D) three
E) infinitely many
Solution 77. We can first get a base of 5 for each term in the inequality:

56n−1 < 252n+3 < 1252n+1

56n−1 < (52 )2n+3 < (53 )2n+1
56n−1 < 54n+6 < 56n+3

If 56n−1 < 54n+6 , then it must be true that 6n − 1 < 4n + 6, so 2n < 7 and
n < 3.5. And if 54n+6 < 56n+3 , then it must be true that 4n + 6 < 6n + 3, so
3 < 2n, and 1.5 < n. So the inequality will be true if 1.5 < n < 3.5, and is thus
true for two integer values of n, n = 2 and n = 3.
It is also possible to see unknown exponents in questions with fractions:
 x+1
1 1
<
5 25
The rule we saw above does not apply if our base is less than 1. You could
learn a separate rule to cover fractional bases, but it is easier simply to remember
only one rule, and to rewrite inequalities such as this one so that our bases are
integers. Here, both denominators are positive, so we can safely multiply both
sides of the inequality by each denominator, after getting the same bases:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 138
  x+1
1 1
<
5 25
1 1
< 2
5x+1 5
52
<1
5x+1
52 < 5x+1
2<x+1
1<x

The situation becomes even more complicated if your bases are negative,
because in that case it matters whether the exponent is even or odd. That
situation is normally too complicated for the GMAT, and could only be tested
if it were obvious whether your exponents were even or odd. So I suppose you
could see something like this, where k is an integer:

(−3)2k−1 < (−3)3

because here, 2k − 1 is clearly an odd number. So we can rewrite the bases on

each side, using our exponent rules, as follows:

(−3)2k−1 < (−3)3

(−1)2k−1 (3)2k−1 < (−1)3 (3)3
−32k−1 < −33
32k−1 > 33
2k − 1 > 3
2k > 4
k>2

Here, we used the fact that when we raise −1 to any odd power, we simply get
−1, and we then multiplied by −1 on both sides of the inequality (reversing the
inequality when we did). Then we arrived at a more familiar situation where
we could use the rule above.
The situation with negative bases is complicated, and I cannot recall ever
seeing it tested in an official GMAT question. While the question below illus-
trates this situation, it might be slightly beyond the scope of the test:
Sample Question 78. If s and n are integers, and n > 1, is s > 1?
1) sn < sn+2
2) sn < sn+3
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 139
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 78. Each statement will be true whenever s > 1, so we can get a ‘yes’
answer using either statement. The only question is whether we can get a ‘no’
answer. That is, we want to know if a negative integer value for s is possible
(since s cannot be 0 or 1 in either statement). So we can imagine some negative
value for s, say s = −2, and see whether that value can work in each statement.
Note that it will be crucially important to consider values of n which are even
and odd, since when n is even, (−2)n is positive, and when n is odd, (−2)n is
negative.

In Statement 1, if we let s = −2, we can see that the inequality will be

true when n is any even integer. So s can be negative, and Statement 1 is not
sufficient.

In Statement 2, if we let s = −2, we can see that the inequality will be true
when n is any odd integer, because in that case, sn will be negative, and sn+3
will be positive, because n + 3 will be even. So s can be negative, and Statement
2 is not sufficient.

Combining the statements, we know s could be positive. If s is negative,

then from Statement 2, we know n would need to be odd (if n is even, then sn
is positive and sn+3 is negative, and then it would be impossible for sn < sn+3
to be true). But if n is odd, and sn is therefore negative, we can divide on both
sides of the inequality in Statement 1 by sn , reversing the inequality when we
do so, since we’re dividing by a negative:

sn < sn+2
sn+2
1>
sn
1 > s2

but we know s is a nonzero integer, so it is impossible for this inequality to

be true. That means using both statements together, it is impossible that s is
negative, and the answer is C.

12.9 Equations, Non-Strict Inequalities

12.9.1 Equations and Inequalities
Some questions contain both inequalities and equations. For example, a DS
question might ask if x > 2, and provide a quadratic equation in each state-
ment. Then you would need only solve each quadratic, and check whether both
solutions are greater than 2. So sometimes these questions are really testing
your ability to work with equations, not with inequalities.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 140
 But when questions are fundamentally about inequalities (usually with two
or more unknowns), there are two things to be aware of. First, it is sometimes
best to think about an equation in terms of inequalities, if the question asks
about an inequality. So this equation for example:

3a − 3b = 1

certainly gives us a specific relationship between a and b, but if the question is

an inequality question, what might be more important is that the equation tells
us that
1
a−b=
3
1
a=b+
3
so it must be true that a > b. Often that inequality is the only information you
1
would need to extract from the equation; the specific value often will not be
3
important.
More important still, there is one technique that can always be used when
solving a question that provides both an inequality and an equation: substitu-
tion. You can always solve the equation for one unknown, then substitute for
that unknown in the inequality. The question below provides an example:
Sample Question 79. Is y > 0?
y
1) x =
y−1
2x
2) >y
x−1
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 79. Using either Statement alone, y can be positive or negative,
since x can have any value. When we use both statements together, since we
y
know from Statement 1 that x is equal to , we can substitute for x in the
y−1

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 141
inequality in Statement 2:
2x
>y
x−1
 
y
(2) y−1
y >y
y−1 − 1
2y
  !
y−1 y−1
y >y
y−1 y−1 − 1
2y
>y
y − (y − 1)
2y
>y
y−y+1
2y > y
y>0

and the two statements together are sufficient. The answer is C.

12.9.2 Non-Strict Inequalities

Non-strict inequalities (inequalities like a ≥ b or x ≤ y, which allow for the left
and right sides to be equal) do not appear very often in proper algebra questions.
The algebraic rules for non-strict inequalities are the same as for strict ones, so
all of the discussion so far applies to non-strict inequalities as well. But if an
inequality is not strict, there is probably a reason for that – it may be important
to consider separately the possibility that the left and right sides are exactly
equal. And occasionally what appears to be a non-strict inequality may not be
an inequality at all, as in the example below:
Sample Question 80. Is x > 3.5?
1) |x − 4| ≥ 0
2) x2 − 8x + 16 ≤ 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 80. Since absolute values are never negative, Statement 1 is always
true for any value of x, so is not sufficient.
In Statement 2, we can factor the left side:

x2 − 8x + 16 ≤ 0
(x − 4)2 ≤ 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 142
but the left side is a square, so could never be less than 0. If it is less than or
equal to 0, it must be exactly equal to 0. And if (x − 4)2 = 0, then x = 4, so
we can answer the question. The answer is B.

12.9.3 Maximization Problems

There is one standard question type which almost always features non-strict
inequalities – the maximization or minimization inequality problem. In these
problems, the question will ask for the maximum or minimum value of a simple
combination of two unknowns, so might ask for the maximum value of x − y
or of xy, and will provide a range of possible values of x and y, so for example
might tell you
−4 ≤ x ≤ 3
−5 ≤ y ≤ 6
In such questions, you only need to consider the four possible ways to combine
the maximum and minimum values of x and y. So here, if we were asked for
the maximum and minimum possible values of xy, we only need to consider the
four products we can get when we multiply x = −4 and x = 3 by y = −5 and
y = 6. We would have these four possibilities:
xy = (−4)(−5) = 20
xy = (−4)(6) = −24
xy = (3)(−5) = −15
xy = (3)(6) = 18
from which we can see the maximum possible value of xy is 20, and the minimum
possible value of xy is −24, so −24 ≤ xy ≤ 20.
Sample Question 81. If −7 ≤ a ≤ 3 and −4 ≤ b ≤ 9 what is the sum of the
maximum possible value of a − b and the minimum possible value of a − b?
A) −9
B) −5
C) −2
D) 0
E) 9
Solution 81. We need only consider the four values of a − b we can get when
we make each of a and b as small and as large as possible. So we only need to
evaluate a − b when a = −7 and a = 3, and when b = −4 and b = 9. The four
possible differences are
a − b = −7 − (−4) = −3
a − b = −7 − 9 = −16
a − b = 3 − (−4) = 7
a − b = 3 − 9 = −6

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 143
So the largest possible value of a − b is 7, and the smallest possible value of a − b
is −16, and the sum of these two values is −9.
Of course in the solution above, you do not need to evaluate all four possible
differences if you recognize that to maximize a − b, you want to make a as
large as possible and b as small as possible, and you want to do the reverse to
minimize a − b. But if you do not quickly see how to set the values of a and b
to find the required maximum or minimum, it takes little effort to evaluate the
four possible combinations of the extreme values for a and b, so that is a good
fallback to quickly resort to if you do not immediately see how to set a and b.

12.10 Data Sufficiency Strategies

12.10.1 Scenario Generation
In Data Sufficiency questions, sometimes there is no algebraic way us transform
the inequality in a statement into something resembling the question that is
asked. These situations arise frequently when information is not sufficient: there
is often no algebraic way to prove information is insufficient. Sometimes the only
way to be sure a statement is not sufficient is to generate two different numerical
scenarios which give two different answers to the question. Scenario-generation
is a crucially important technique in Data Sufficiency, and is used throughout
this chapter, but the example below in particular illustrates how to recognize
when to use it.
In order to spend as little time as possible generating scenarios, it helps to
do as follows:

• if there are obvious algebraic simplifications, do them, so it is easier to tell

what restrictions you’re working with
• then immediately generate the simplest imaginable scenario that obeys all
of the information provided. That will always quickly give you one answer
to the question
• you next want to see if you can get a different answer to the question. If
you can, then that is a proof the information is not sufficient. First ask:
what type of example would I need to use to get a different answer than
before? In inequality questions, it is almost always true that, if your first
example was a ‘positive’ example (that is, if you used numbers that made
the quantities in the question positive), your next one will need to be a
negative example (that is, you’ll need to choose numbers that make some
of the quantities in the question negative).
• always try to use the simplest possible number that are allowed. It depends
on the expressions in the question just what those numbers will be, but
in very simple cases, often 1 and -1 are good choices.
• if, after trying to get different answers to the question, you continually
get the same answer to the question, you should definitely guess that the

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 144
 information is sufficient, even if you are not completely sure why. You will
be selecting the right answer the vast majority of the time – it’s only if
by bad luck you’ve missed an exception or special case that you might be
choosing the wrong answer.

Sample Question 82. If a < b and x < y, is ab < xy?

1) a < x and b < y
2) ax < by
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 82. This question contains a few traps – for example, a test taker
who believes you can multiply two inequalities together will think Statement 1
is sufficient, as will a test taker who does not consider negative numbers. And
when we use both Statements together, it appears we have a lot of information:

a<b
x<y
a<x
b<y
ax < by

yet even with all of this information, there is no algebraic rule we can use here
to get anything resembling the inequality in the question, ab < xy. In such
cases, the best strategy is to immediately begin generating example scenarios,
scenarios which are as simple as possible.
It can be helpful to quickly combine some of the information above, so it
will be easier to recognize which scenarios observe all of the information we’re
given. Here, combining the first four inequalities, we know

a<b<y
a<x<y

and we also know ax < by. We want to know if we can get both a ‘yes’ and a
‘no’ answer to the question “Is ab < xy?”
We can get a ‘yes’ answer to the question just by letting a = 1, b = 2,
x = 3 and y = 4, for example. Now when looking at Statement 1, we saw that
negative numbers are crucially important – if we only test positive numbers,
we will always get a ‘yes’ answer. So we should next try a case where at least
one of our unknowns is negative, and since a is the smallest of the unknowns,
a must be negative. So we might let a = −1, b = 0, x = 1 and y = 2. Here
all of our information is true, but again we get a ‘yes’ answer to the question,

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 145
since ab is indeed less than xy. So we can try another very simple example,
this time making more of our unknowns negative, say: a = −3 b = −1, x = 1,
y = 2. Then again all of our information is true, but in this case ab is not less
than xy. So the answer to the question is ‘no’, and this conclusively proves the
information provided is not sufficient. The answer is E.

12.10.2 Rephrasing the Question

In DS questions, often the question itself is simple, something like “Is a > 0”,
and the statements contain more complicated inequalities that we can solve
algebraically. But in some questions, the statements are simple, and the question
itself contains a complicated inequality. If you rearrange an inequality in the
question itself, it is important to understand that you are not proving anything.
You are only rephrasing the question. To remind myself, when rephrasing a
question, that I’m not proving a fact, I always write a question mark next to
each line as I solve the inequality the question asks about, as illustrated below:
x2 xy
Sample Question 83. If x 6= y, is > ?
x−y x−y
1) x > 0
2) x > y
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 83. Here the complicated inequality is in the question itself. If we
solve this inequality, we are not proving anything. Instead, we are changing the
question into an equivalent question which will be easier to answer:
x2 xy
Is > ?
x−y x−y
x2 xy
Is − >0 ?
x−y x−y
x2 − xy
Is >0 ?
x−y
x(x − y)
Is >0 ?
x−y
Is x > 0 ?
So the question is simply asking whether x is positive. That’s what Statement 1
tells us, so Statement 1 is sufficient. Using Statement 2 alone, we know nothing
at all about x or y except that x is greater than y, so we have no way to tell if
x is positive or negative, and Statement 2 is not sufficient.
The answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 146
12.11 Additional Questions
Sample Question 84. If n > 6, is
  
1 1 10
1− 1− > ?
n n−1 11

1) n > 23
2) n < 25
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 84. We can rewrite the left side of the inequality in the question
by getting common denominators within each factor. Notice that we are only
rephrasing the question here – we are not proving anything:
  
1 1 10
Is 1 − 1− > ?
n n−1 11
  
n 1 n−1 1 10
Is − − > ?
n n n−1 n−1 11
  
n−1 n−2 10
Is > ?
n n−1 11
n−2 10
Is > ?
n 11
Is 11n − 22 > 10n ?
Is n > 22 ?

So the answer to the question is ‘yes’ provided that n > 22, from which we can
see that the answer is A.
x−1
Sample Question 85. Is > 0?
y−2
1. y < 2
2. x < y − 1

Solution 85. The answer to the question will be yes only when x − 1 and y − 2
have the same sign.
From Statement 1, we learn that y − 2 < 0, but we do not know whether x − 1
is positive or negative, so Statement 1 is not sufficient.
From Statement 2, subtracting 1 from both sides, we learn that x − 1 < y − 2, so
the numerator of the fraction in the question is smaller than the denominator,
but we have no way to know if both have the same sign.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 147
Using both Statements together, we know that x − 1 < y − 2 and that y − 2 < 0,
so x − 1 < 0 must be true, and x − 1 and y − 2 have the same sign, so the answer
to the question must be ‘yes’. The answer is C.
Sample Question 86. Is a > b?
1) 3a > 4b
2) ab < 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 86. From Statement 1, we cannot tell whether a > b is true; it may
be that a = 100 and b = 0, in which case a > b, or it may be that a = −6 and
b = −5, and a < b.
From Statement 2, we can be sure that a and b have opposite signs, but we
can’t be sure which of a or b is positive, so Statement 2 is not sufficient.
Combining the two Statements, from Statement 2, a and b have opposite signs,
so one of a or b is positive, the other negative. Now, if 3a > 4b, it must be that
a is positive and b is negative, since 3a could not be greater than 4b if a were
negative and b were positive. Thus a > 0 > b and the two Statements together
are sufficient. The answer is C.
22
Sample Question 87. Is x < ?
7
1
1) >6
x−3
1
2) >8
x−3
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
22
Solution 87. We want to know if x is less than = 3 17 . If Statement 1 is
7
true, it must be that x − 3 is positive, so we can multiply by x − 3 on both sides
to find

1 > 6x − 18
19 > 6x
19
>x
6

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 148
So we know that x < 3 16 . Still, we can’t quite be certain that x < 3 71 , since it
is still possible that 3 17 < x < 3 61 . So Statement 1 is not sufficient.
Similarly for Statement 2, x − 3 must be positive, so multiplying by x − 3 on
both sides, we find

1 > 8x − 24
25 > 8x
25
>x
8
So we know that x < 3 81 , and since 3 18 < 3 17 , the answer to the question must
be ‘yes’ and Statement 2 is sufficient. The answer is B.
a
Sample Question 88. If 0 < a < b < c < d, is < 0.25 ?
b
c+a
1) < 0.25
d+b
c+a c
2) <
d+b d
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 88. Statement 1 is not sufficient alone, since it might be that a = 1,
c = 6 and d = 1000, in which case b could be 3 and the answer is ‘no’, or b could
be 5 and the answer is ‘yes’.

Statement 2 is not sufficient alone, since we can get a ‘no’ answer to the
question if we let a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 and d = 4, and a ‘yes’ answer if we let
a = 1, b = 5, c = 6 and d = 7.
Using both statements, there does not appear to be a direct way to solve any
a
inequality to arrive at < 0.25 at the end. But Statement 1 does tell us that a
b
c+a
different fraction is less than 0.25, namely . So perhaps we can prove that
d+b
a c+a
<
b d+b
a
in which case we could be sure that < 0.25 and the answer to the question
b
would be yes. We can determine when this inequality will be true by rewriting

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 149
it:
a c+a
<
b d+b
ad + ab < bc + ab
ad < bc
a c
<
b d
a c
So if we can prove that < is true, we can be certain the answer to the
b d
question is ‘yes’. We have not yet solved the inequality in Statement 2, so we
can see what it tells us, multiplying on both sides by d + b and by d:
c+a c
<
d+b d
(d)(c + a) < (c)(d + b)
cd + ad < cd + bc
ad < bc
a c
<
b d
So Statement 2 tells us what we were hoping to find, and the two Statements
together are sufficient. The answer is C.
The algebraic solution above is difficult. This question is easier to answer
if you recognize the connection with real world mixtures or weighted average
problems. In general, if a, b, c and d are all positive, then one of the following
two things must be true:
a a+c c
< <
b b+d d
or
c a+c a
< <
d b+d b
(except in the one case where all three fractions are exactly equal). This can
be seen by solving each pair of inequalities algebraically, but it can also be
seen by imagining a real world situation where we might see these fractions.
Suppose there are only two classes at a school. If the first class is 20% boys,
and the second is 40% boys, then from mixtures or weighted average principles,
it must be true that somewhere between 20% and 40% of all students are boys.
Similarly, if the first class has a boys and b students in total, and the second
class has c boys and d students in total, then the school has a + c boys out
of a total of b + d students. The proportion of students who are boys in the
a+c
entire school (which is ) must be in between the proportions in the two
b+d
a c
classes (that is, it must be between the proportions and ). So one of the
b d
two inequalities above must be true.
We could rephrase the original Sample Question in the same language. The
question asks if the first class is less than 25% boys. Statement 1 says less than

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 150
25% of students at the entire school are boys. Statement 2 says that the second
class has a higher proportion of boys than the school as a whole, so the first
class must have a lower proportion than the school as a whole, and if less than
25% of students are boys at the school overall, the first class must have an even
smaller percentage of students who are boys.
That solution uses integers, but the logic would be the same if we were
mixing two salt solutions, say, where quantities need not be integers.
Sample Question 89. Is (t + 1)2 > 1?
1) (t − 1)2 > 1
2) (t − 2)2 > 4
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 89. Recall that the inequality x2 > 1 means that either x > 1, or
x < −1.
Here, the question asks if (t + 1)2 > 1 is true. Notice that this inequality is
exactly like the inequality x2 > 1, but with the ‘x’ replaced with ‘t + 1’. So the
question is asking if either t + 1 > 1 is true, or t + 1 < −1 is true. If we rewrite
these, we find the question is asking “Is it true that either t > 0 or t < −2?”
Perhaps a simpler rephrasing would be “Is it certain that t is not between −2
and 0 (inclusive)?”

Statement 1 tells us that (t − 1)2 > 1, so we know that either t − 1 > 1, or

t − 1 < −1. Rewriting these, we find either t > 2 or t < 0. So it is possible that
t is between −2 and 0, and possible that, say, t > 2, and Statement 1 is not
sufficient.

Statement 2 tells us that (t − 2)2 > 4, so we know that either t − 2 > 2, or

t − 2 < −2. Rewriting these, we find either t > 4, or t < 0. Again t can be
between −2 and 0, and can also be outside of that range, so Statement 2 is not
sufficient.

Even combining the two Statements, it is possible that t = −1, in which

case the answer to the question is ‘no’, or that t = 10, in which case the answer
to the question is ‘yes’, so the answer is E.
Sample Question 90. Is a + b > 1 ?
1) ac + ad + bc + bd > c + d
2) d > −c
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 151
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 90. If we factor on the left side of Statement 1, we find

ac + ad + bc + bd > c + d
a(c + d) + b(c + d) > c + d
(a + b)(c + d) > c + d

Now, if we knew that c + d was positive, we could divide on both sides by c + d

to find that a + b > 1. However, since it might be that c + d is negative, we
cannot be certain that a + b > 1 is true. Statement 2 is not sufficient alone,
but since it can be rewritten as c + d > 0, then combined with Statement 1, we
know the answer to the question is yes, and the answer is C.
Sample Question 91. If a < b < c < d < e < f < g, and abcdef g 6= 0, is
abcdef g > 0?
1) a > f g
2) bc > de
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 91. We are finding the product of seven numbers. If we have an even
number of negatives in our product, the product will be positive, and if we have
an odd number of negatives in our product, the product will be negative.
From Statement 1, there are two possibilities. If f g is positive, then Statement 1
ensures that a is positive. But since a is the smallest of our seven numbers, then
all of our numbers would be positive, and abcdef g would certainly be positive
(note that this case is possible only if the numbers are all between 0 and 1).
If instead f g is negative, then f and g have opposite signs, and since f < g,
f is negative and g is positive. But then since the remaining unknowns are all
less than f , all of the remaining unknowns must be negative, so we would then
have exactly six negative values and one positive value, and again abcdef g is
positive. So Statement 1 is sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient, since it might be that b = −10, c = −9, d = −8
and e = −7. In that case, we have at least five negative values, but we have
no information at all about the signs of f and g – both could be positive, or
one could be positive and one could be negative, and the product abcdef g could
thus be negative or could be positive.
The answer is A.
Sample Question 92. If a < b, is a < x < b?
1) (x − a)(x − b) < 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 152
2) a < 0 < b
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 92. From Statement 1 we know that x − a and x − b have opposite
signs, so one is positive and one is negative. But we also know that a < b, from
which it must be true that x − a > x − b (since we are subtracting a larger
number on the right side). So if one of x − a or x − b is positive, it must be that
x − a is positive, and if x − a > 0, we have that x > a. Further if x − b < 0
we have that x < b. So we know that a < x < b and Statement 1 is sufficient.
Since Statement 2 gives no information about x, the answer is A.
a b
Sample Question 93. If ab 6= 0, is + < −ab?
b a
1) ab < 0
−a
2) ab <
b
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 93. We can rewrite the question with 0 on one side:
a b
Is + + ab < 0 ?
b a
a b
Now notice that , and ab must all have the same sign; if ab is positive, so
b a
a b
are and , in which case the answer to the question will be ‘no’, and if ab
b a
a b
is negative, then so are and , in which case the answer to the question will
b a
be ‘yes’. So the question is just asking “Is ab < 0?” We now see immediately
that Statement 1 is sufficient alone. And by rewriting Statement 2 with 0 on
one side, we have
a
ab + < 0
b
a
and since ab and have the same sign, this can only be true if ab < 0, so
b
Statement 2 gives us the same information as Statement 1, and is also sufficient.
The answer is D.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 153
Sample Question 94. If abc 6= 0, is c < 0?
1) c < ab
2) abc < 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 94. Using either statement alone, c can be positive or negative. When
we combine the statements, we know from Statement 2 that (ab)(c) < 0. So
either ab is positive and c is negative, or ab is negative and c is positive. But
if Statement 1 is true, and c < ab, it’s impossible that c is positive and ab is
negative. So it must be true that c < 0, and the answer is C.
Sample Question 95. If x < 2x2 < 3x3 , which of the following could be true?
1 1
I) <x<
3 2
1 2
II) < x <
2 3
2 3
III) < x <
3 4
A) I only
B) II only
C) III only
D) I and II only
E) II and III only
Solution 95. From the answer choices, we only need to be concerned about
positive values of x. So we can divide by x on both sides of the inequality
1
x < 2x2 , and we find that 1 < 2x, and x > . Further, we can divide by x2 on
2
2 3 2
both sides of the inequality 2x < 3x to find that 2 < 3x, and x > . So only
3
III is possible, and the answer is C.
Sample Question 96. Is a > c?
ab − ac
1) >c
b−c
2) ab − ac − bc + c2 > 0
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 154
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 96. In Statement 1, we can factor out a in the numerator on the left
side, then cancel:
ab − ac
>c
b−c
a(b − c)
>c
b−c
a>c

so Statement 1 is sufficient.
In Statement 2, a is a common factor of the first two terms, and c is a common
factor of the last two terms. If we take out those common factors, we have

ab − ac − bc + c2 > 0
a(b − c) − c(b − c) > 0

Now (b − c) is a common factor of both products on the left side, so we can

factor it out to get
(b − c)(a − c) > 0
We now have a product which is positive, so either both factors in the product
are positive, or both factors are negative. But a − c is one of the two factors,
and if it can be either positive or negative, then a > c and a < c can both be
true. So Statement 2 is not sufficient.
The answer is A.
Sample Question 97. Is x + k < 17?
1) 2x + k = 17
2) x > k
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 97. Statement 1 is not sufficient, but you can only see that by imag-
ining examples where x is negative. If, say, x = −2 and k = 21, then Statement
1 is true, and the answer to the question is ‘no’. But using any positive value
of x, we can also get a ‘yes’ answer, so Statement 1 is not sufficient. Statement
2 is clearly not sufficient alone.
Using both statements, if Statement 1 is true, then at least one of x or k must
be positive, since if they were both negative, 2x+k would be a negative number.
And if one of the unknowns must be positive, then if, as Statement 2 tells us,

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 155
x > k, then x must be positive. If we subtract x on both sides of Statement 1,
we find

2x + k = 17
x + k = 17 − x

If x is positive, then 17 − x is definitely less than 17, so since 17 − x is equal to

x + k, we have just shown x + k < 17, and the answer is C.
3
Sample Question 98. Is x2 + x < ?
2
3
1) x <
5
3
2) x2 <
5
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 98. One might be tempted to use both statements together here, since
6
you could add the two inequalities to find that x2 + x < , so it is certainly
5
possible to answer the question with both statements. But that only means
that the answer is not E; we still need to consider each statement alone.
Statement 1 is not sufficient, because x could be any negative number. If x =
−10, for example, we can get a ‘no’ answer to the question. r
2 3 3
From Statement 2, we know 0 ≤ x < . So x cannot be larger than =
√ 5 5
0.6. There is no need to compute
√ this root precisely; if we work out (0.8)2 , we
2
find this is larger than 0.6. So 0.6 < 0.8, and x < 0.8, so x + x < 0.6 + 0.8 <
1.4, and Statement 2 is sufficient alone. The answer is B.
Sample Question 99. If xy 6= 0, is x > 2y?

x2 y2
1) >
x − 2y 2y − x
2) x > 4y
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 156
Solution 99. In Statement 1, the numerators on either side are squares, so
must be positive (since xy 6= 0). The denominators are similar to each other
– indeed, they are identical except that the signs are all reversed on the right
side. That means the denominator on the right side is precisely the negative of
the denominator on the left side:

−(x − 2y) = −x + 2y = 2y − x

So one denominator is positive, and the other is negative. Since both numerators
are positive, one fraction is positive, and the other is negative. It certainly must
x2
be true that the positive fraction is larger than the negative one, so
x − 2y
must be positive, and x − 2y > 0 must be true, so x > 2y, and Statement 1 is
sufficient.
If Statement 2 is true, and x > 4y, then if all the unknowns are positive, it will
certainly be true that x > 2y. But if we imagine negative examples, x > 2y
does not need to be true. For example, if y = −1, then Statement 2 tells us
that x > −4. So perhaps x = −3. Then x > 2y is not true. So Statement 2 is
not sufficient.
The answer is A.
Sample Question 100. If a < b, is (x − a)2 > (x − b)2 ?
a+b
1) x >
2
2) x − a > x − b
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 100. It may be useful to rephrase the question – since the question
involves expressions resembling quadratics, it will be useful to get 0 on one side.
We can either expand on both sides, or use the difference of squares factorization,
as below:

Is (x − a)2 > (x − b)2 ?

Is (x − a)2 − (x − b)2 > 0 ?
Is (x − a + x − b)(x − a − (x − b)) > 0 ?
Is (2x − a − b)(b − a) > 0 ?

Notice that we know from the question that a < b, so we know that b − a > 0.
So the answer to the question will be ‘yes’ if we also know the other factor on

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 157
the left side above is positive, or in other words if we know that

2x − a − b > 0
2x > a + b
a+b
x>
2
so Statement 1 tells us exactly what we need, and is sufficient.
We can rewrite Statement 2 by subtracting x from both sides, then multiplying
by −1:

x−a>x−b
−a > −b
a<b

which is something we already knew from the question itself, so is not new
information. So Statement 2 is not sufficient, and the answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 158
13 Absolute Value
id 00157

13.1 Definition
The absolute value of a number is simply its distance from zero on the num-
ber line. Thus, absolute value leaves positive numbers unchanged, but makes
negative numbers positive:

|5| = 5
| − 7| = 7
|0| = 0

In purely arithmetic questions, or when absolute value is not a major feature

of a question, all you will need is to understand what absolute value does. So,
for example, if asked to evaluate this:

||5 − 8| − | − 5 − 8||

then no special method is required; just evaluate what is inside each absolute
value (treating them like brackets), and if the resulting value is negative, make
it positive when getting rid of the absolute value brackets:

||5 − 8| − | − 5 − 8|| = || − 3| − | − 13||

= |3 − 13|
= | − 10|
= 10

Similarly, if you see very simple absolute value equations, where you only
have a simple unknown inside absolute value, you very likely won’t need any
special method to solve. For example, if you see

|x| = 5

you can see by inspection that x can be either 5 or −5 (though of course the more
systematic methods discussed below would also work). Often, absolute value is
a minor part of a question about something else (often in questions primarily
testing inequalities), since absolute value can be used to give information about
whether an unknown is positive or negative. So a question might tell you, for
example:
|x| = x
which just means “x does not change when we take its absolute value”, or in
other words, x ≥ 0. Conversely, if you see

|x| =
6 x

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 159
that means that taking the absolute value of x does change its value, which only
happens for negative numbers, so this just says x < 0.
It is not important to memorize these rules – there are many other con-
ceivable inequalities you could see, and you will only rarely see any of them on
the GMAT. By understanding why these inequalities mean what they do, you’ll
be able to analyze any similar inequality that might show up on the test. For
example, you might instead see this inequality:

|x| ≥ x

which tells you nothing whatsoever; the absolute value of x is always either
equal to x, or, when x is negative, is greater than x. And if you see this:

|x| ≤ 0

then since |x| is always positive except when x = 0, this tells you precisely that
x = 0, so it is one of the rare inequalities that is in fact a disguised equation.
Many inequalities that appear more complicated than those above can still
be answered simply by thinking about which quantities are positive and which
are negative. For example:
Sample Question 101. If a 6= b, is
1 1
> ?
|a − b| b−a

1) a > b
2) a2 > b2
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 101. Notice that |a − b| is always positive. But b − a will be negative
if a > b. So the inequality
1 1
>
|a − b| b−a
will always be true if a > b, because the left side will be positive and the right
side will be negative, and positive numbers are always bigger than negatives.
So Statement 1 is sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient, because it is possible that a > b is true, and
the answer to the question is ‘yes’, but it is also possible that a < b (for example
we might have a = −2 and b = 1), in which case the left and right sides of the
inequality in the question are equal. So the answer is A.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 160
13.2 Fundamental Principles
Often we need to do more than simply think about signs or inspect an equation,
when an equation contains an absolute value.
There is only one important algebraic rule about how we can combine abso-
lute values: we can multiply or divide easily:

|a| × |b| = |ab|

and
|a|  a 
= 
|b| b
are always true. Note that the first rule can be used in reverse, to factor from
an absolute value: you can factor something from an absolute value as long as
you keep the thing you’re factoring in absolute value brackets. So for example:

|ab − ac| = |a| × |b − c|

and
| − 5k − 5m| = | − 5| × |k + m| = 5|k + m|
and
| − x| = | − 1| × |x| = |x|
Addition and subtraction, on the other hand, are not at all straightforward;

|a + b| is not always equal to |a| + b|

and
|a − b| is not always equal to |a| − |b|
The sections below will discuss how to approach questions where you are adding
or subtracting things inside of absolute value brackets – these are the most
common kinds of absolute value questions on the GMAT.

13.3 Absolute Value in Equations or Inequalities

In high school, most people learn to solve absolute value equations by using
what I’ll call the “cases method”. When using cases, if you see an absolute
value expression in an equation, say |x + 3|, you were likely taught to divide
the problem into two cases, one where you replace “|x + 3|” with “(x + 3)”, and
one where you replace “|x + 3|” with “−(x + 3)”. I discuss this method in more
detail in a later section, but to explain why I present a different method first,
I wanted to point out the reasons the cases method can be very awkward. If
you are not very familiar with this “cases method”, I’d suggest you skip the list
below for now, and return to it once you have read the sections below about it
and the “distance method”. But if you are familiar with the “cases method”,
note the many issues with it:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 161
 • it tends to be time-consuming. This is especially true when you have more
than one absolute value in the same equation or inequality. For example,
if you have an equation like this:

|a − b| + |c − b| = |a − c|

if you were to try to use cases here, you’d have 8 distinct cases to analyze
(2 for each absolute value);
• often people are unsure what to do when solving inequalities using cases.
Sometimes when people see an inequality like this:

|x + 3| > 5

they are unsure, when replacing |x+3| with −(x+3), whether to reverse the
inequality, for example. You should certainly not reverse the inequality,
but if you can avoid the cases method for inequalities like this, you’ll never
need to worry about this question;

• if you aren’t careful about understanding the assumptions you’re making

when considering each case, you can get “phantom solutions” to your
equations. If you take an equation like this one, say:

|2x − 13| + |x − 2| = 6

and if you consider the case where we will replace |2x−13| with −(2x−13)
and |x − 2| with −(x − 2), you would solve this equation:

−(2x − 13) − (x − 2) = 6
−2x + 13 − x + 2 = 6
−3x + 15 = 6
−3x = −9
x=3

That might seem like a legitimate solution to the equation, but if you
plug x = 3 back into the original equation, you’ll find the equation isn’t
true. It’s not a valid solution. The problem is that when we use cases,
we’re making certain assumptions about x in each case, and any solution
that contradicts our assumptions is not a legitimate solution, and must
be discarded. But if you aren’t careful about specifying the assumptions
you’re making, you can think you have more solutions than you genuinely
have. I discuss this issue in complete detail in the section about the cases
method;
• Sometimes people avoid this issue with ‘phantom solutions’ by plugging
each solution back in to the original equation to confirm each solution is
valid. That is time-consuming, but is otherwise a perfectly good method

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 162
 for equations. But it’s much harder to do with inequalities. So if you see
this:
|2x + 2| > x
and you solve using cases, you’ll find, replacing |2x + 2| with (2x + 2),
−2
that x > −2, and replacing |2x + 2| with −(2x + 2) that x < . Many
3
people might think the solutions here are only those values between −2
−2
and . But that’s not correct: the inequality is true for any value of x
3
at all, as becomes obvious if you just think about what the inequality is
saying. If x is negative, then clearly any absolute value will automatically
be larger than x, since absolute values are never negative. And if x is
positive, then 2x + 2 is positive, so the absolute value does nothing in this
case, and 2x + 2 is certainly bigger than x when x is positive. Again, I
discuss in complete detail in a later section how to correctly use cases to
analyze inequalities.

So the cases method is a long and error-prone method for absolute value
questions. Fortunately there is another method that can almost always be
used on actual GMAT questions. I call this method the “distance method”,
since rather than use algebra and cases, instead we will reinterpret our absolute
values as simple distances on the number line. That way, we can turn what look
like algebra questions into simple geometry problems about distance.

13.4 The Distance Method

Certain absolute value expressions can be interpreted as distances on the number
line. As mentioned above:

• |x| is the distance between x and zero on the number line

Thus, if we have an inequality:

|x| < 3

we can translate this into words: “The distance from x to zero is less than 3.”
Since −3 is exactly three to the right of zero, and 3 is exactly three to the left
of zero, x must be within those bounds:

−3 0 3
and −3 < x < 3.

For more complicated GMAT problems, a second distance interpretation is

very useful:

• |a − b| is the distance between a and b on the number line

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 163
 One fact that then becomes immediately obvious:
|a − b| = |b − a|
is always true, since both expressions are equal to the distance between a and b
(or you can demonstrate this algebraically, by factoring | − 1| from |a − b|).
Because we can interpret |a − b| as a distance on the number line, we can
turn what appear to be algebra questions into simple distance problems. Thus
if we see, for example:
• |x − 3|, this means “the distance between x and 3”
• |3 − x|, this means “the distance between 3 and x”, which is the same
thing as |x − 3|
• 2|x−5|, this means “two times (or ‘twice’, or ‘double’) the distance between
x and 5”
Applying this to a simple equation, say:
|x − 3| = 5
this says, in words, “the distance between x and 3 is equal to 5”. If we draw a
number line, we know that x must either be 5 units to the left or to the right of 3:

x 3 x
so either x = −2 or x = 8.
We must be subtracting two things inside the absolute value to interpret the
expression as a distance. If instead we find a sum inside an absolute value, we
can still use the same principle, by making a small adjustment. If, for example,
we have the inequality
|x + 2| < 1
we can rewrite the expression inside the absolute value to get the required
subtraction, by replacing the “+” with two minus signs:
|x − (−2)| < 1
and now this inequality just says “the distance between x and −2 is less than
1”. Drawing the number −2 on a number line:

x −2 x
if x is less than one unit away from −2, then it must be true that −3 < x < −1.
The above examples can also easily be solved using the cases method. The
advantages of the distance method become more apparent when you have two
or more absolute value expressions in the same question:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 164
Sample Question 102. If y = |x + 1| + |x − 3|, which of the following describes
all of the values of x for which y = 4?
A) x < 0
B) −3 ≤ x ≤ 1
C) −1 ≤ x ≤ 3
D) −3 ≤ x ≤ −1
E) 1 ≤ x ≤ 3
Solution 102. In order to understand the absolute value expressions on the
right side of the equation, we want to write them to look like |a − b|:

y = |x − (−1)| + |x − 3|

Thus, y is equal to the distance between x and −1, plus the distance between
x and 3. We can draw a number line with the numbers −1 and 3 on it, and
imagine putting x to the left of −1, in between −1 and 3, and to the right of 3:

x −1 3
Notice in this case, the distance from x to 3 alone will be greater than 4, so
there is no chance that the sum of the two distances will be 4. Similarly if we
put x to the right of 3:

−1 3 x
then the distance from x to −1 alone will be greater than 4, so the sum of the
two distances will exceed 4. It is only when x is in the middle:

−1 x 3
that we can see that by adding the distance from −1 to x and the distance from
x to 3 we simply cover the entire distance from −1 to 3, so we get a sum equal
to 4. So y = 4 will be true provided that −1 ≤ x ≤ 3.
Sample Question 103. How many distinct values of x are solutions to the
equation |x2 − 9| = 7?
A) none
B) one
C) two
D) four
E) infinitely many
Solution 103. Interpreting this as a statement about distances, this says “the
distance between x2 and 9 is equal to 7”. Rephrasing, this says “x2 is seven
units away from 9”. Since x2 might be to the left or to the right of 9, we have
two possible values for x2 :

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 165
 2 9 16
So we get two cases:
√ √
• x2 = 2, so x = 2 or − 2

• x2 = 16, so x = 4 or −4

There are thus four different possible values of x.

If you have practiced using the distance method to solve absolute value
questions, then that may make some questions which do not explicitly include
absolute value simpler to answer:
Sample Question 104. If a, b and c are distinct real numbers, is c between a
and b on the number line?
1) 0 < b < a
2) The distance between a and c on the number line is greater than the distance
between a and b.
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 104. Statement 1 tells us nothing about c, so cannot be sufficient.

From Statement 2, we know that a and b are closer together than a and c.
If we imagine placing a and b on a number line,

b a
we know that c must be further from a than b is. That means either c is the
smallest of the three numbers, or c is the largest of the three numbers – it is
not possible for c to be between a and b. While the number line above assumes
b < a, the analysis is identical when a < b, so Statement 2 is sufficient to
establish that c is not between a and b, and the answer is B.
Notice in the problem above that Statement 2 is describing in words some-
thing that could instead have been described using an absolute value inequality:

|a − c| > |a − b|

so the above is really an absolute value question disguised as a word problem.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 166
Sample Question 105. The sum of the distinct solutions to the equation |x −
5| = 3|x − 25| is equal to:
A) 15
B) 20
C) 35
D) 45
E) 55
Solution 105. Again, let’s interpret the equation in terms of distances:

|x − 5| = 3|x − 25|

says “the distance between x and 5 is three times the distance between x and
25”. Rephrasing, “x is three times as far from 5 as it is from 25.” This may be
less abstract if we draw the number line, plotting the two relevant numbers (5
and 25):

5 25

Again, we can consider three cases: x could be to the right of 5, between 5

and 25, or to the left of 25. Considering each case in turn:

x 5 25
Here, we can see that x is closer to 5 than to 25. So it is impossible that x is
three times as far from 5 as it is from 25. Thus, it’s impossible that x < 5, and
the case above need not be considered.

5 x 25

Here, if x is between 5 and 25, there will be one value of x for which x will be
exactly three times as far from 5 as it is from 25. Clearly this value will be much
closer to 25 than it is to 5. Indeed, it will divide the segment of the number line
from 5 to 25 into two parts, in a 3 to 1 ratio. Since 20 is the distance from 5 to
25, and since we want to divide 20 in a 3 to 1 ratio, the smaller distance, from
25 to x, is just 5, and x must be equal to 25 − 5 = 20.
Finally, if x is to the right of 25, there will be another solution:

5 25 x
Again, we need to find a value of x so that x is three times as far from 5 as it

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 167
is from 25. So we need the ratio of x − 5 to x − 25 to be 3 to 1, so we need to
solve the equation x − 5 = 3(x − 25). We find that x = 35.
So there are two possible values for x; x could be 20 or 35, and the sum of
the two solutions is 55.
Sample Question 106. If a < b and |x − a| < |x − b| what must be true?
I) x < a
II) x < b
III) 2x < a + b

A) I only
B) II only
C) III only
D) II and III only
E) I, II and III
Solution 106. Since a < b, we have the following picture on a number line:

a b
Now, we also know that |x − a| < |x − b|, or in words, that the distance between
x and a is less than the distance between x and b. Rephrasing, that just means
that x is closer to a than it is to b. So x must be less than the midpoint of a
and b. First, that means that x < b must be true, so II must be true, but since
the midpoint of a and b is just the average of a and b, we also know that
a+b
x<
2
2x < a + b

so III must also be true. It is not necessarily true that x < a, though, because
x can be greater than a provided x is less than the midpoint of a and b. So the
answer is II and III only.
Sample Question 107. Is x < 1.2?
   
 13   11 
1) x −  < x − 
11 9
   
 31   34 
2) x −  < x − 
30 25
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 168
Solution 107. We can interpret statement 1 in terms of distances; it tells us
13
that “the distance between x and is smaller than the distance between x
11
11 13 11
and ”, or in other words, that x is closer to than it is to . Drawing
9 11 9
13 11
those two values on a number line (note that is smaller than )
11 9

13 11
11 9

13
we can see that if x is closer to then x must be less than the midpoint of
11
13 11
and . The midpoint of any two numbers on the number line is just the
11 9
average of those two numbers, so we know that
13
+ 11
11 9
x<
2
117
+ 121
x < 99 99
2
238
99
x<
2
119
x<
99
20
x<1+
99
20 20
Now, since it has a smaller denominator, is just slightly larger than =
99 100
20
0.2, so 1 + is slightly larger than 1.2. So Statement 1 is not quite sufficient,
99
20
since it is still possible that x has a value somewhere between 1.2 and 1 + .
99
We can analyze Statement 2 in a similar way; Statement 2 tells us that x is less
31 34
than the average of and . Here it may be convenient to use decimals:
30 25
    
31 1 1 1 1
=1+ =1+ =1+ (0.3333 . . .) = 1.03333 . . .
30 30 10 3 10
and
34 9 36
=1+ =1+ = 1.36
25 25 100
So the average of these two fractions is
1.36 + 1.03333 . . . 2.39333333
=
2 2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 169
 2.4
which is less than = 1.2, so we can be certain x < 1.2 is true, and Statement
2
2 is sufficient. The answer is B.
Sample Question 108. If t < 0, is |s − t| > |t| − |s|?
1) st < 0
2) s = t + 11
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Solution 108. Using Statement 1, since t < 0, it must be true that s > 0. So
we have this picture on the number line:

t 0 s

The distance between s and t above, which is |t − s|, is clearly bigger than the
distance between t and zero, which is |t|, so |s − t| > |t| must be true. But since
|s| is positive, |t| must be greater than |t| − |s|. So |s − t| > |t| > |t| − |s| must
be true, and Statement 1 is sufficient.
Statement 2 is not sufficient, because, as we saw analyzing Statement 1, if s and
t have opposite signs, the answer to the question is ‘yes’, and that is possible
using only Statement 2. But it is also possible that s and t have the same sign –
for example, we might have t = −20 and s = −9. In that case, |t − s| = 11, and
|t| − |s| = 20 − 9 = 11, and the answer to the question is ‘no’. So the answer is
A.

13.5 The Cases Method

There is a second method to solve absolute value questions, a method most
people encounter in high school (and in most GMAT books). I call this method
the “cases method”, because it requires us, for each absolute value in an equation
or inequality, to separate the solution into two cases. The method has many
disadvantages (described in section 13.3), so it is best to avoid using cases if
any other method is available. But the cases method does have one significant
advantage: it always works. So it should be your immediate fallback method any
time you see an absolute value equation or inequality that can’t be interpreted
in terms of distances, and which can’t be solved by simple inspection. Such
equations and inequalities fortunately are very rare on the GMAT, so learning

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 170
the cases method should be a low study priority, provided you understand the
other absolute value material in this chapter.
We most often need to use cases when we see an unknown in an equation or
inequality that is both inside and outside of an absolute value. Because we have
an unknown outside of an absolute value, it can be difficult or impossible to
interpret the entire equation as a statement about distances. So this equation,
for example:
3
|z + 2| =
z
is one where we would immediately want to use the cases method, because even
though the left side expresses a distance (between z and −2), the right side
cannot be interpreted as a distance.
To use cases, we rely on the following: if x ≥ 0, taking the absolute value of
x does nothing, so |x| = x. But when x < 0, taking the absolute value of x will
change the sign of x from negative to positive, so to −x. So

• |x| = x if x ≥ 0
• |x| = −x if x < 0
This second case can look confusing to some test takers, because “−x” looks
like a negative number, but if x < 0, then −x is a positive number, because it
is the negative of a negative.
To solve an absolute value equation or inequality using cases, then for each
absolute value we divide our solution into the two cases above. So, suppose
|x − 3| appears in an equation. Then to use cases we would:
• assume the expression inside the absolute value is positive or zero, so
x − 3 ≥ 0, or x ≥ 3. In this case, the absolute value will do nothing,
and we can simply erase it, and solve the resulting equation. But we have
assumed x ≥ 3, so if we get any solution that is not 3 or larger, it is not
a legitimate solution, and we must discard it.
• assume the expression inside the absolute value is negative, so x − 3 < 0,
and x < 3. In this case the absolute value will reverse the sign of x − 3, so
we can replace “|x − 3|” with “−(x − 3)” and solve the resulting equation.
But we have assumed x < 3, so if we get any solution that is greater than
3, it is not a legitimate solution, and we must discard it.
Notice in each case that it is crucially important to keep track of the initial
assumption you are making, so you know which of your solutions are valid and
which are not. To see why this is so important, we can look at the equation
mentioned earlier:
3
|z + 2| =
z
We have two cases:

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 171
 • If z + 2 ≥ 0, so if z ≥ −2, the absolute value does nothing, and we can
erase it. We then have the equation
3
z+2=
z
z 2 + 2z = 3
z 2 + 2z − 3 = 0
(z + 3)(z − 1) = 0

It now may appear that we have two solutions: z = −3 and z = 1. But we

assumed in advance of solving this case that z ≥ −2. The only solutions
that therefore ‘count’ are solutions greater than or equal to −2. So we
only have one solution in this case, z = 1
• If z + 2 < 0, so if z < −2, then the left side of the equation is positive,
and the right side is negative, so there can be no solutions in this case.
Or you could replace |z + 2| with −(z + 2) to get the equation
3
−(z + 2) =
z
which, when simplified, will yield a quadratic with no solutions.

In the solution above, in order to decide which solutions ‘count’ and which
we must ignore, we compared our solutions in the first case with the assumption
about z that we made. As an alternative, you could instead plug each solution
you find back in to your absolute value equation to see if each works, and
only count those that do – this is what many books will recommend. The
first approach, where we compare our assumptions and our solutions, is better,
because it also can easily be used for inequalities, but for equations, either
method is fine. To save time, just be aware that you do not need to do both
things. If you check that your solutions agree with your assumptions, you do
not also need to plug your solutions back in to you original equation.
Sample Question 109. How many solutions does the equation

|x − 7| + |2x − 4| + x = 6

have ?
A) none
B) one
C) two
D) three
E) four
Solution 109. Even though each absolute value on its own can be interpreted
as a distance, because we are adding an x that is not enclosed in an absolute
value, interpreting the entire equation as a statement about distances is difficult.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 172
So we should use cases.
We can first rewrite the equation as |x − 7| + (2)|x − 2| + x = 6. Many people
at this stage will divide their solution into four cases (since each of the two
absolute values produces two cases). But one of those four cases is impossible.
Notice that x − 7 is always smaller than x − 2. So if x − 2 is negative, then x − 7
must be negative. So we only have three cases:
• If x − 7 and x − 2 are both positive or zero, or in other words if x ≥ 7,
then the absolute values will do nothing. We then have the equation:

x − 7 + 2x − 4 + x = 6
4x − 11 = 6
17
x=
4
Notice that we assumed x ≥ 7 in this case, so this is not a valid solution,
and we must discard it. Alternatively, you could plug this ‘solution’ back
in to the original equation to see that it does not work.
• If x − 2 is positive or zero and x − 7 is negative, or in other words if
2 ≤ x < 7, then |x − 2| = x − 2, while |x − 7| = −(x − 7) = 7 − x. So in
this case we have the following equation:

7 − x + 2x − 4 + x = 6
3 + 2x = 6
2x = 3
3
x=
2
But again, this is not a valid solution, because we assumed 2 ≤ x < 7 (or
you could plug x = 1.5 back in to the original equation to see that it does
not work).

• If x − 2 and x − 7 are both negative, or in other words if x < 2, then

|x − 7| = 7 − x and |x − 2| = 2 − x. So we get this equation:

7 − x + 4 − 2x + x = 6
11 − 2x = 6
2x = 5
5
x=
2
and yet again, this solution disagrees with our assumption that x < 2,
so it is also not a valid solution (or we can plug x = 2.5 back in to the
original equation to see that it does not work).
So the equation has no solutions for x.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 173
Sample Question 110. What is the value of x?
1) (x − 2)(x − 9) = x − 2
2) x|4 − x| + 7x = 18
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 110. You might be able to tell by inspection, in Statement 1, that
either x − 9 = 1, and x = 10, or x − 2 = 0, and x = 2. We can also move
everything to the left side and factor:

(x − 2)(x − 9) = x − 2
(x − 2)(x − 9) − (1)(x − 2) = 0
(x − 2)(x − 9 − 1) = 0
(x − 2)(x − 10) = 0

from which we see there are two solutions for x, and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
In Statement 2, while it’s possible to interpret |x − 4| as a distance, it becomes
very difficult to understand what distance we’re thinking about once we multiply
that by x, and even more complicated when we then add 7x. So this is the type
of absolute value equation that requires cases. We have two of them:
• If 4 − x ≥ 0, so if x ≤ 4, then the absolute value will do nothing to 4 − x,
and we can erase it to get:

(x)(4 − x) + 7x = 18
4x − x2 + 7x = 18
x2 − 11x + 18 = 0
(x − 2)(x − 9) = 0

from which it appears we have two solutions, x = 2 and x = 9. But we

assumed, before beginning this case, that x ≤ 4. So only x = 2 is a valid
solution to the equation. As an alternative, you could plug each solution
back in to the original equation; if we plug in x = 9, we find that the left
and right sides are different, so it is not a legitimate solution.
• If 4 − x < 0, so if x > 4, then when we take the absolute value of 4 − x,
we will get −(4 − x) = x − 4. So in this case our equation becomes

(x)(x − 4) + 7x = 18
x2 − 4x + 7x = 18
x2 + 3x − 18 = 0
(x + 6)(x − 3) = 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 174
 and we appear to have two solutions, x = −6 and x = 3. But we assumed
in this case that x > 4. Neither of these solutions is greater than 4, so
neither is a valid solution. Or, you can plug each solution back in to the
original equation to confirm that neither works. So there are no possible
values of x in this case.

So Statement 2 alone yields only one solution for x, x = 2, and is sufficient

alone. The answer is B.

13.6 Cases and Inequalities

Using cases becomes especially difficult with inequalities. It then becomes cru-
cially important to keep track of your assumptions for each case, because you
will not arrive at solutions you could plug back in to an equation. Instead, when
you solve each case, you will arrive at an inequality. You would then need to
combine that inequality with the assumption you made, by seeing where they
overlap. For example, if you solve one case by assuming x > 3, and discover,
in your solution, that 2 < x < 5, the only legitimate solutions are those where
x > 3 and 2 < x < 5 are both true, so the only legitimate solutions are 3 < x < 5.
To illustrate, we can first use cases for an inequality like the following:

|x − 3| < |x − 5|

It is much easier to analyze this using distances, but supposing we decided to

use cases, we would proceed as follows:
• If x ≥ 5, then x − 3 and x − 5 are both positive or zero, so the absolute
values do nothing and we can erase them. We then get the inequality
x − 3 < x − 5, or, subtracting x on both sides, −3 < −5. This is never
true, so the original inequality is never true if x > 5.
• If 3 ≤ x < 5, then x − 3 is positive or zero, so |x − 3| = x − 3, and x − 5
is negative, so |x − 5| = −(x − 5). So we then need to solve the inequality
x − 3 < −(x − 5), which becomes after simplifying 2x < 8 or x < 4. We
assumed 3 ≤ x < 5, and this overlaps with the inequality x < 4 only when
3 ≤ x < 4, so that is our set of solutions for this case.
• If x < 3, then x − 3 and x − 5 are both negative, and when we take their
absolute values, we get −(x − 3) and −(x − 5) respectively. So we then
need to solve the inequality −(x − 3) < −(x − 5), or, multiplying by −1
and reversing the inequality, x − 3 > x − 5. Subtracting x on both sides,
this becomes −3 > −5, which is always true. So in this case, when x < 3,
the original inequality is always true.
Combining the information from each case, we find that the inequality is
true when 3 ≤ x < 4, and when x < 3, so it is true whenever x < 4.
Notice above how complicated case analysis can become for inequalities. If
the distance method is available, it will always be easier to use distances. I don’t

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 175
recall seeing any GMAT inequality absolute value questions where the distance
method was not usable, though in theory such an inequality could appear on
the test. But if they ever appear, they are exceedingly rare, so it is very unlikely
you’ll need to solve a question with a case analysis as complicated as what we
need in this problem:
Sample
 Question
 111. If x 6= 1 and x 6= 13, is 1 < x < 13?
 24
1)  x−1 − 2 + x < 13


2) 1 < |x| < 13

A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 111. It is impossible to interpret the inequality as a statement about
distances, so we must use cases. But because case analysis is so complicated, if
we can rule out in advance any possible values of x, that will save us a lot of
time. And here, notice that on the left side of Statement 1, if x > 13, we are
adding x, which is larger than 13, to an absolute value, which is positive. The
left side would then always sum to something larger than 13, and the inequality
could never be true. So we know in advance that if Statement 1 is true, x < 13,
and we can ignore the possibility that x > 13 in our solution. We then have two
possibilities:
• If the expression inside the absolute value is positive, we can erase the
absolute value and solve the resulting inequality. We first need to work
24 24
out when − 2 > 0 is true, so when > 2 is true. Notice this
x−1 x−1
could never be true if x − 1 is negative, because then the left side would
be negative. So it is only true when x > 1, and we can multiply by x − 1
on both sides to get 24 > 2x − 2, and so x < 13. So in our first case, we
are assuming 1 < x < 13. Then we can erase the absolute value and solve:
24
− 2 + x < 13
x−1
24
− 15 + x < 0
x−1
and since we’ve assumed x − 1 is positive, we can safely multiply by x − 1
on both sides to get

24 − 15(x − 1) + x(x − 1) < 0

24 − 15x + 15 + x2 − x < 0
x2 − 16x + 39 < 0
(x − 3)(x − 13) < 0

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 176
 so one of the two factors is negative and the other is positive, and since
x − 13 is smaller than x − 3, it must be that x − 13 is the negative factor,
so x < 13, and x − 3 must be positive, so x > 3. So 3 < x < 13. Since we
assumed 1 < x < 13 for this case, taking the region where our solutions
overlap, we have found that the inequality works when 3 < x < 13.

• The expression inside the absolute value will be negative whenever either
x < 1 or x > 13, since, as we saw in the first case, it is positive otherwise.
But we already know that it is impossible that x > 13 is true, so we only
need to consider the case where x < 1. Our inequality then becomes
24
2− + x < 13
x−1
24
x − 11 − <0
x−1
Since we are assuming x < 1, then x − 1 is negative, so when we multiply
by x − 1 on both sides, we must reverse the inequality:
24
x − 11 − <0
x−1
x(x − 1) − 11(x − 1) − 24 > 0
x2 − x − 11x + 11 − 24 > 0
x2 − 12x − 13 > 0
(x − 13)(x + 1) > 0

This will be true when both factors are positive, so when x > 13, or when
both are negative, so when x < −1. But we assumed that x < 1, so the
only legitimate solutions are those where x < −1.
Combining the two cases, it is possible that 3 < x < 13 is true, and possible
that x < −1 is true, and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
For Statement 2, either 1 < x < 13, or −13 < x < −1, so Statement 2 is not
sufficient alone. Even combining the Statements, we know that either 3 < x <
13 or −13 < x < 1, so the answer is E.

13.7 Absolute Value and Square Roots

There is a relationship between absolute value and a certain type of square root
that is sometimes explicitly tested in GMAT questions. Consider the following:
√
x2
Many test takers incorrectly think this is equal to x, but it is only equal to x
when x ≥ 0. If you plug in a negative value for x, say x = −3, you find
√ p √
x2 = (−3)2 = 9 = 3

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 177
 √ which was −3. The sign has
Notice the result is not equal to x, √ changed from
negative to positive. In general, x2 = x when x ≥ 0, and x2 = −x when
x < 0 (note in this case, −x is a positive number, because x is negative). But
that is exactly what |x| is equal to; |x| is equal to x if x ≥ 0, and to −x when
x < 0. So these two expressions are always equal:
√
x2 = |x|
Because these two expressions are equal, absolute value questions can oc-
casionally be disguised. Earlier, in one of the sample questions, this equation
appeared:

|x − 5| = 3|x − 25|
That question could instead have featured this equation:
p p
(x − 5)2 = 3 (x − 25)2
and it would have
p been mathematically identical,
p despite the change in appear-
ance, because (x − 5)2 = |x − 5|, and (x − 25)2 = |x − 25|.

In general, because distance approaches are easier to think about when look-
ing at absolute values rather
p than at roots, it almost always makes sense to re-
place an expression like (x − 5)2 with the equivalent expression |x − 5| before
doing anything else.
Sample
p Question 112. Is x > 1?
1) p(2 − x)2 > p3
2) (2 − x)2 + (4 − x)2 > 1
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 112. We can rewrite Statement 1 as an absolute value; it tells us

|2 − x| > 3

so the distance between 2 and x is greater than 3. If x is to the right of 2, that

means x > 5, but if x is to the left of 2, that means x < −1. So we cannot tell
if x > 1, and Statement 1 is not sufficient.
We can also rewrite Statement 2 using absolute value:

|2 − x| + |4 − x| > 1

which says that the sum of the distances from x to 2 and from x to 4 is greater
than 1. But if you sketch a number line, you will see that this is always true

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 178
(the minimum possible value of |2 − x| + |4 − x| is 2, when x is anywhere between
2 and 4 inclusive), so Statement 2 tells us nothing.
The answer is E.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 179
14 Functions and Operations
14.1 Functions
A function is a rule that takes an input value and produces an output value. So,
for example, “squaring a number” is a simple example of a function: if we take,
say, 3 as our input value, this function would produce 9 as its output value.
Or we might have a function defined for integers 2 or larger which counts how
many prime divisors an input value has. If we input the number 30 into this
function, the output would be ‘3’, because 30 has three prime divisors.
Any rule or mapping that produces a well-defined output value for any valid
input value is a function. But most of the functions on the GMAT are defined
algebraically – that is, we are given some algebraic rule or formula that tells us
how to modify an input value to produce an output value. The notation can
be confusing the first time you see it (though becomes so quickly familiar that
anyone who has worked with functions a lot can skip the next paragraph). The
below is one example of a function defined algebraically:

f (x) = x2 + 1
It might appear on the left side of the equation above that we are multiplying
two unknowns together, but that is not the case. Here, ‘f ’ is the name of a
function, and ‘x’ is the value we are inputting into the function. The equation
above tells us “when you put x into the function f , the output value is x2 + 1”.
In other words, this function takes an input value, squares it, and adds one. If
someone were reading the above equation aloud, they would say “f of x is equal
to x squared plus one”.
Using the standard notation for functions, we can see what happens to a few
input values for this specific function:

f (2) = 22 + 1 = 5
f (0) = 02 + 1 = 1
f (−17) = (−17)2 + 1 = 290
Here, f (2) means “the value you get when you plug 2 into the function f ”.
In theory, any letter could be used as the name of a function. In algebraic
contexts, f and g (and sometimes h) are by far the most common choices, so
if you see f (x), g(x) or h(x), you are always looking at a function. In applied
contexts, sometimes the name of the function is borrowed from the output it
produces. So, for example, in physics, we might have a function that tells us the
distance a ball has traveled t seconds after it is thrown. It would be conventional
in that case to name the function d, and to write that function this way:
d(t) = 10t
Since it is also possible (though very rare) to see notation like a(b) when mul-
tiplying two unknowns, you will sometimes have to judge by context if the

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 180
notation represents a function. In general though, a question will almost al-
ways use the word ‘function’ somewhere if the question somewhere discusses a
function, so in practice it is always easy to tell.
Sample Question 113. For the function

f (x) = (x)(1 − x)(2 − x)

what is the value of f (−3)?

A) −60

B) −12

C) 3

D) 12

E) 60

Solution 113. We must replace ‘x’ with ‘−3’ everywhere x appears in the
definition of the function. As with any substitution, when necessary, we should
enclose the ‘−3’ in brackets when we substitute:

f (−3) = (−3)(1 − (−3))(2 − (−3)) = (−3)(1 + 3)(2 + 3) = (−3)(4)(5) = −60

Sample Question 114. If the function g(x) is defined so that

x+1
g(x) =
x−1
1 −1



then g 2 −g 2 =
−10
A)
3
−8
B)
3
−3
C)
2
−1
D)
2
E) 0
Solution 114. To evaluate g( 12 ), we must replace ‘x’ everywhere with ‘ 12 ’ in

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 181
the rule that defines the function. So
  1
1 +1
2
g = 1
2 −1
2
1+2
=
1−2
= −3

Similarly, to evaluate g( −1 −1
2 ), we must replace ‘x’ everywhere with ‘ 2 ’ in the
rule that defines the function. So
  −1
−1 2 +1
g = −1
2 −1
2
−1 + 2
=
−1 − 2
−1
=
3
and so      
1 −1 −1 1 −8
g −g = −3 − = −3 + =
2 2 3 3 3

In higher-level GMAT questions that specifically test functions, by far the

most common situation is one where you need to plug an algebraic expression
(and not a number) into a function. So for example, given the function

f (x) = x + 1

if we are asked what f (3x) is, then we are being asked to replace ‘x’ in the
definition of the function with ‘3x’. That is straightforward in this example:

f (3x) = 3x + 1

Things can become complicated when we need to plug more complex expres-
sions into functions:
Sample Question 115. If for all positive values of x, the function f (x) is defined
so that
x−1
f (x) =
x+1
then f ( x1 − 1) =
x−2
A)
x
x
B)
x−2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 182
 x2 − 2x + 1
C)
x2 + x
D) 1 − 2x

E) 2 − x
Solution 115. To evaluate f ( x1 − 1) we just need to replace ‘x’ with
‘ x1 − 1’
in the definition of the function – that is, we just replace x with x1 − 1 in the
x−1
expression . Doing this we have
x+1
1 1


x − 1
− 1 x −2
1 = 1
x −1 +1
x 
1
= − 2 (x)
x
= 1 − 2x
so the answer is D.
The most typical example of a question of this type, where we plug algebraic
expressions into functions, is one where we are asked if a certain functional
equation will be true for various functions. So often you will be asked, in a
Roman numeral question, which of three functions satisfy the equation f (x) =
f (−x), say. Since the question will tell you what f (x) is, you will simply need
to work out what f (−x) is, and compare it with f (x) to see if it is identical
(after simplifying, if necessary) or different.
Sample Question 116. If x 6= 0 and x 6= 1, for which of the following functions
is g(x) = g(1 − x)?
1−x
I) g(x) =
x−1
II) g(x) = (x)2 (1 − x)2
III) g(x) = x2 − (1 − x)2
A) I only

B) III only

C) I and II only

D) I and III only

E) II and III only

1−x
Solution 116. For g(x) = , we could replace x with 1−x to see if g(1−x)
x−1
is the same as g(x), but instead we could notice that
1−x −(x − 1)
g(x) = = = −1
x−1 x−1

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 183
so this function will produce the output value −1 no matter what we plug into it.
In particular, we will get −1 if we plug in ‘1−x’, so the equation g(x) = g(1−x)
will be true for I.
For the second function, replacing each occurrence of ‘x’ with ‘(1 − x)’, we have

g(1 − x) = (1 − x)2 (1 − (1 − x))2

= (1 − x)2 (1 − 1 + x)2
= (1 − x)2 (x)2

which is identical to g(x), so II also satisfies the equation given.

Since there is now no answer choice besides C that could be correct, there is
no need to check the function in III, but we can confirm that for it, g(1 − x) is
different from g(x):

g(1 − x) = (1 − x)2 − (1 − (1 − x))2

= (1 − x)2 − x2

which is the exact negative of g(x), so is not equal to g(x).

So the answer is C.
Sample Question 117. f (x) is a function defined for all real numbers x. For all
integers x, f (x) = f (2 − x), and f (−x) = −f (x). Which of the following must be
true?
I) f (6) = f (2)
II) f (6) = f (−4)
III) f (6) = 0

A) I only
B) II only
C) I and II only
D) I and III only
E) I, II and III
Solution 117. If f (−x) = −f (x) is always true, then it must be true if x = 0.
But then f (0) = −f (0), which can only be true if f (0) = 0. But we also
know that f (x) = f (2 − x), so plugging in x = 0, we learn that f (0) = f (2),
and since f (0) = 0, it must also be true that f (2) = 0. But again using that
f (−x) = −f (x) when x = 2, we learn that f (−2) = −f (2), so f (−2) must also
equal 0. Plugging x = −2 back in to f (x) = f (2 − x), we find that f (4) = 0,
and so on. So we’ll find that whenever x is an even integer, f (x) = 0 is true, so
f (6) = f (4) = f (2) = f (0) = f (−2) = f (−4) = 0, and the answer is I, II and
III.
There is an alternative strategy for such questions, that many prep compa-
nies will advise you to use. I do not advise it, unless you think you’d find it
unduly challenging to carry out a solution like the one above. But one alterna-
tive strategy is to ‘pick numbers’. So say we are asked to judge if f (x) = f (−x)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 184
for a few functions. If the first function we are asked about is

f (x) = x2 + 5

We might plug in x = 1. Then our task is to decide if f (1) = f (−1). So we

can evaluate both; we find f (1) = 12 + 5 = 6, and f (−1) = (−1)2 + 5 = 6, and
these are indeed equal. At this point we could plug in more values or just guess
that the functions are always equal. But you might see the problem with this
approach if the next function we need to evaluate is

f (x) = x3 − x

Again, we might plug in x = 1 to see if f (1) = f (−1). We find that f (1) =

13 − 1 = 0, and that f (−1) = (−1)3 − (−1) = −1 + 1 = 0. So f (1) = f (−1).
But if you now guess that f (x) = f (−x), you’ll get the wrong answer. Yes, it is
true for that one particular value of x that f (x) = f (−x), but it is not always
true. You’d discover that by plugging in x = 2, say, or by doing the question
properly, by replacing x with −x to see what f (−x) is actually equal to.
So using this ‘number picking’ strategy can lead you to wrong answers. It
also seems to take considerably longer than it would to simply do the algebra,
especially if one is carefully plugging in more than one number to be sure two
functions aren’t equal for your first number just by coincidence. It is, however, a
better strategy than random guessing, however, so if you don’t find you’re able
to carry out algebraic solutions to these types of problems, it is a worthwhile
fallback strategy, and one that will produce right answers to most medium-level
questions.

14.2 Functions: Miscellaneous Topics

Once you understand what a function is, what the notation means, and how
to plug numbers and algebraic expressions into functions, you know essentially
everything you’ll need for the GMAT. There are a few minor points that may
be important:

• If you encounter a function in coordinate geometry, and need to graph

that function, simply think of f (x) as being identical to y. So if you need
to graph the function f (x) = x + 3, then you simply need to graph the
line y = x + 3, the line with a slope of 1 and a y-intercept of 3.
• Never try to ‘invent’ algebraic rules for functions. For example, say you
see the following:
f (x) × f (y)
Note that you have never learned any algebraic rule that would let you
combine these functions or ‘simplify’ here. In general, the above is not
always equal to f (xy) (it is for certain functions, but not for most). Sim-
ilarly, if you see g(x) + g(y), that is not usually equal to g(x + y) (again,
it is for certain functions, but not for most). And (f (x))2 is not equal to

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 185
 f (x2 ) most of the time. So if you need to do any arithmetic with functions,
always immediately get rid of the “f (x)”, by using the definition of the
function that you’ve been provided, so you get back to familiar algebra
where you know exactly what the rules are.
• There are two terms I have never once seen in an actual GMAT question,
but which appear in the mathematics overview in the Official Guide. It
is almost certainly safe to not bother learning them, but since they are in
the OG overview, I suppose there is a chance they could appear in a test
question. The domain of a function is the set of input values you can plug
in to a function. For many functions, the domain is “everything”, i.e. “all
real numbers”. So for the function g(x) = x2 , we can plug in any number
at all. But for some functions
√ the domain is restricted. For example, for
the function f (x) = x − 1, we cannot plug in, for example, x = −7,
because we would then be taking the square root of a negative number.
In order for the expression under the root to be zero or greater, it must
be true that x ≥ 1, so that is the domain of this function. Similarly, if x
appears in a denominator in the definition of a function, any value that
makes the denominator zero will not be part of that function’s domain.
And it is very often true for number-theoretic functions that they are
restricted explicitly to positive integers. So the function mentioned in the
previous section, which counts the number of prime divisors of a positive
integer, has, as its domain, only positive integers, since it would not make
sense to apply that function to a number like 3.7.
• The other term I have never once seen in an actual question is potentially
confusing, since it is used with a completely different meaning in Statistics.
The range of a function is the set of all output values that function can
produce. This is not the same ‘range’ that you encounter in Statistics
– it’s an altogether different usage of the word. Every time I have ever
seen a GMAT question use the word ‘range’, the question is talking about
range in the meaning from Statistics. But in the unlikely event you see
the word in a question about functions, that question would be describing
what values a function could take on. Many functions can take on any
value at all, so for the function

h(x) = x3

the range is all real numbers, since this function can equal any positive or
negative number (or zero). But for many functions, the range is limited.
For example, for
g(x) = x2
the range is g(x) ≥ 0, because when we plug anything into ‘x2 ’, we can only
get something zero or larger. And if a question were to explicitly restrict
the domain of a function, then the range of that function could also be
restricted. So if a question told you that the function d(t) = (t − 3)2 + 10
was defined only for the values 1 ≤ t ≤ 6, and asked for the range of d(t),

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 186
 we’d want to know the largest and smallest values the function can take
on when t is between 1 and 6 inclusive. Here, (t − 3)2 will always be 0 or
larger, so its minimum value occurs when t = 3, and the minimum value
d(t) can take is 0 + 10 = 10. The maximum will occur when t = 6, since
that makes (t − 3)2 largest for any value in the 1 ≤ t ≤ 6 interval. So the
largest value of d(t) is (6 − 3)2 + 10 = 19, and the range of the function is
the set of values between 10 and 19 inclusive.
• there are other things you’d normally learn about if you were first learning
about functions in a pre-calculus class, say, and those things are often
taught in introductions to functions for the GMAT. For example, some
books might teach you how to ‘compose’ two functions, or how to find
the ‘inverse’ of a function. Until the GMAT actually starts testing those
things, those books are wasting test takers’ time.

14.3 Operations
An operation is a function that takes two input values. So addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division are familiar examples of operations. Some GMAT
questions will define brand new operations that you have never seen before. In
such questions, typically some exotic symbol like # or & is used to represent
the operation. So for example, a question might tell you that an operation # is
defined so that, for all numbers x and y,
x#y = 3xy − y 2
If we then wanted to evaluate 5#2, we would use the definition of the operation
above, replacing the ‘x’ with ‘5’ and the y with ‘2’:
5#2 = 3(5)(2) − 22 = 30 − 4 = 26
In arithmetic operations questions, where you only need to plug numbers into
an operation, typically you will need to apply the operation more than once.
Be sure to correctly observe the bracketing in such questions. Again using the
operation above, if we needed to evaluate
3#(2#1)
we would first evaluate the expression in brackets:
3#(2#1) = 3#(3(2)(1) − 12 ) = 3#(6 − 1) = 3#5
and finally we can evaluate 3#5 to get the answer:
3#5 = 3(3)(5) − 52 = 45 − 25 = 20
In higher level questions, you will almost always be plugging algebraic expres-
sions into operations. So again using the operation above, we might need to
evaluate
(x + y)#(x − y)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 187
Sometimes these questions can be confusing, because the letters used in the
definition of the function (x and y in this case) can sometimes be reused in the
algebraic expressions we need to work with. If you find this at all confusing,
you can freely change the letters in the definition of the function to anything
else; if an operation is defined this way:

x#y = 3xy − y 2

then that is the same operation as one defined this way

a#b = 3ab − b2

and now to evaluate (x + y)#(x − y), we need to replace the ‘a’ with ‘(x + y)’
and the ‘b’ with ‘(x − y)’. Since we’re doing a substitution, it is safest to enclose
in brackets the expression we are substituting:

(x+y)#(x−y) = 3(x+y)(x−y)−(x−y)2 = 3x2 −3y 2 −x2 +2xy−y 2 = 2x2 +2xy−4y 2

When a brand new operation is defined in a GMAT question, be aware that

you will not know in advance a single algebraic rule you could use to simplify
expressions using that operation. So if a question were to define an operation
&, and you then saw this:
(x&y)2
do not replace this with (x2 &y 2 ), say. That might be correct, but probably isn’t
– since you don’t know any of the algebraic rules the operation & obeys, there’s
no way to guess which simplifications would be correct and which would not.
You should always immediately get rid of the ‘&’, using the rule defined in the
question, and then only simplify once you see familiar operations like addition
and multiplication, where you know which simplifications are legal.
Sample Question 118. If a&b is defined to be equal to ba − a for all positive
numbers
√ a and b, and 2&x = 6, what is the value of x?
A) 2
B) 3
C) 4 √
D) 2 2
E) 12
Solution 118. We know 2&x = 6 . Using the definition of the operation &,
replacing a with 2 and b with x, we find:

x2 − 2 = 6
x2 = 8
√
x= 8
√
x=2 2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 188
15 Sequences
id 00157

15.1 Definition and Notation

A sequence is an ordered list of numbers. Because sequences are ordered, we
can talk about the ‘first term’ or the ‘eighth term’ of a sequence. This makes
sequences different from sets, which have no order. Sequences can consist of a
finite number of terms, or of an infinite number of terms.
When some terms of a sequence are unknown, a sequence will often be
written:
a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , . . .
where any letter could be used (so you could instead see c1 , c2 , etc.). Here, the
subscript indicates where you are in the sequence, so a1 is the first term, a2 the
second term, and an the nth term of the sequence.
Occasionally, the first term of a sequence may be a0 instead of a1 (and the
second term would thus be a1 , and so on), and this, a bit confusingly, is true
in some branches of mathematics as well. A question will always make clear
where a sequence begins, and it’s important to take note of that detail, because
if a question asks for, say, the ‘fifth term’ of a sequence, they are asking for the
value of a5 if the sequence begins at a1 , but they are asking for the value of a4
if the sequence begins at a0 .
Most often, sequences on the GMAT will be defined algebraically. There are
two types of algebraic definition, discussed in the following sections. But since
a sequence is simply an ordered list of numbers, there is no requirement that a
sequence be defined using algebra. Instead a sequence can be defined in words,
as in the following:
Sample Question 119. In the sequence c1 , c2 , c3 , . . ., the first term, c1 , is 10,
the second term, c2 , is 15, and each term after the second is equal to the Least
Common Multiple of the two preceding terms. What is the sum of the first ten
terms of this sequence?
A) 145
B) 265
C) 300
D) 505
E) 1225

Solution 119. The first two terms of our sequence are 10 and 15. The question
tells us that, to find any later term in the sequence, we need to find the LCM
of the two previous terms. So to find the third term, we need to find the LCM
of the first and second terms, so the LCM of 10 and 15, which is 30. So the
sequence begins
10, 15, 30, . . .

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 189
and the fourth term will be the LCM of 15 and 30, the two previous terms.
That LCM is just equal to 30, and every subsequent term will also be 30, so our
sequence is
10, 15, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, . . .
Of the first ten terms, eight of them are equal to 30, and the other two are 10
and 15, so the sum of the first ten terms is

10 + 15 + (8)(30) = 25 + 240 = 265

There are two important observations to make from the question above,
observations that are true of most GMAT sequence questions:

• even when it is unclear what a sequence might look like just from reading
its definition, once we start to work out a few terms, the sequence usually
becomes predictable – we’ll notice a pattern, or a structure to the sequence
that lets us easily work out future terms. So that is, for most sequence
questions, the best strategy to use: work out the first few terms until you
understand how the sequence works.
• since a sequence is just an ordered list of numbers, any kind of math can be
used to define a sequence. Many are defined using algebra, but the above
used number theory, and it is easy to define sequences using statistics or
geometry or combinatorics, say. That a question is a ‘sequence question’
gives you no information at all about what kind of math you’ll be using to
answer the question. Some test takers’ sequences ‘strategy’ is to memorize
some sequence formulas (for what are called ‘arithmetic sequences’ and
‘geometric sequences’) which they then try to use to answer any sequence
question. That strategy is destined to fail. Most sequences on the GMAT
are not ‘arithmetic’ or ‘geometric’ sequences, and using those formulas
will give wrong answers most of the time. GMAT sequences questions are
never testing whether you’ve memorized a formula and can plug numbers
into it, which is why I don’t provide any sequence formulas in this book.
When you see a sequence in a GMAT question, your first task is to work
out what the sequence looks like, and then work out from there what math
is relevant.

15.2 Functional Definitions

Many GMAT sequences are defined using a function. To find the nth term,
we just plug the number n into some function provided in the question. For
example a question might tell you that for a sequence a1 , a2 , a3 , . . ., the nth
term is given by:
an = n2 − 4

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 190
If we then wanted to find, say, the 7th term, which is a7 , we would just plug
n = 7 into the right side of the function above:

a7 = 72 − 4 = 49 − 4 = 45

So a7 = 45, and similarly we can find any other term in the sequence.
Sample Question 120. In a sequence b1 , b2 , b3 , . . ., for each positive integer n,
n+1
bn =
n
What is the product of the first ten terms of this sequence?
11
A)
10
11
B)
5
C) 6
D) 11
31
E)
2

Solution 120. To find the first term, b1 , we plug n = 1 into the definition of
each term:
1+1 2
b1 = =
1 1
Similarly,
2+1 3
b2 = =
2 2
and
3+1 4
b3 = =
3 3
So we’re just producing fractions where the numerator exceeds the denominator
by 1. We need the product of the first ten terms, so up to b10 , which equals
10 + 1 11
b10 = =
10 10
and the product of the first ten terms is
       
2 3 4 5 10 11
...
1 2 3 4 9 10

Notice that almost everything will now cancel, since every number from 2
through 10 appears in a numerator and in a denominator. The only numbers
2
that don’t cancel are the 1 in the denominator of and the 11 in the numerator
1
11 11
of , so the product is = 11.
10 1

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 191
Sample Question 121. In the sequence d1 , d2 , d3 , . . ., for all positive integers
n,
dn = n2 − 25n + 150
If k is a positive integer, is dk > 0?
1) 5 < k < 25
2) k > 10
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 121. In the definition of each term of the sequence, we can factor:

dn = n2 − 25n + 150 = (n − 15)(n − 10)

For (n − 10)(n − 15) to be negative, one of the two factors must be negative,
the other positive. But n − 15 is smaller than n − 10, and if only one factor is
negative, it must be the smaller of the two factors. So n − 15 < 0, and n < 15,
and n − 10 > 0, and n > 10. So a term dk in the sequence will be negative if
10 < k < 15. Even by combining the Statements we cannot be sure that is true,
so the answer is E.
Sample Question 122. In a sequence a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . in which a1 is the first
term, for all positive integers n,

(−1)n
an =
2|2n−21|
What is the sum of the first 20 terms of this sequence?
1 − 220
A) 18
(2 )(3)
1 − 220
B) 18
(2 )(5)
C) 0

220 − 1
D)
(218 )(5)
220 − 1
E) 18
(2 )(3)

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 192
Solution 122. We can work out the first and last few terms of the sequence:

(−1)1 −1
a1 = |2−21|
= 19
2 2
(−1)2 1
a2 = |4−21| = 17
2 2
(−1)3 −1
a3 = |6−21| = 15
2 2
...
(−1)18 1
a18 = = 15
2|36−21| 2
(−1)19 −1
a19 = |38−21| = 17
2 2
(−1)20 1
a20 = |40−21| = 19
2 2
Notice now that a1 + a20 = 0, and that a2 + a19 = 0 and that a3 + a18 = 0.
Similarly, a4 + a17 = 0 will be true, and so on, so the sum is equal to 0.

15.3 Recursive Definitions

There is another algebraic way a sequence can be defined, using what is known
as a recursive definition. In such a definition, later terms in a sequence are
defined using earlier terms of the sequence. As one simple example, we might
be told that x1 = 5, and that for integers n > 1,

xn = 2xn−1 − 1

The (n − 1)th term is the term in the sequence immediately before the nth
term. So the above definition says, in words, “to find the nth term, multiply
the previous term by 2 and subtract 1”. Algebraically, since we know x1 = 5,
we can find x2 by plugging n = 2 into the definition above:

x2 = 2x2−1 − 1 = 2x1 − 1 = 2(5) − 1 = 9

Similarly, to find x3 , we can plug n = 3 into the definition above, using our
newly found value of x2 :

x3 = 2x3−1 − 1 = 2x2 − 1 = 2(9) − 1 = 17

and so on.
Many recursive definitions combine two earlier terms in the sequence. The
famous Fibonacci sequence is one example. In the Fibonacci sequence, the first
two terms are both 1, and we add two successive terms to find the next term.
So the first several terms of the Fibonacci sequence are

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, . . .

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 193
There’s no reason to know this sequence for the GMAT, but it is useful to see
how a sequence like the one above could instead be defined using a recursive
algebraic definition, rather than a definition explained in words. The sequence
above could instead have been defined as follows: in the sequence

a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , . . .

a1 = 1, a2 = 1, and for all integers n > 2,

an = an−1 + an−2

Notice here that an−1 and an−2 are the two terms immediately before an . So this
definition just tells us “to find an , add the two immediately preceding terms”.
The following questions give a few examples of how to work with recursive
definitions, some of which use only the preceding term, some of which use (at
least) the two preceding terms.
Sample Question 123. In a sequence t1 , t2 , t3 , . . ., the first term t1 is equal to
3, and for all integers n ≥ 1, tn+1 = 2tn . What is t6 + t7 ?
A) 18
B) 36
C) 72
D) 144
E) 288
Solution 123. In this sequence, t1 = 3, t2 = 6, t3 = 12, etc, and tn = (3)(2n−1 ).
Thus,

t6 + t7 = (3)(25 ) + (3)(26 )
= (3)(25 )(1 + 2)
= (32 )(25 )
= (9)(32)
= 288

Sample Question 124. The sequence a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , . . ., consists of positive

integers, and a1 < a2 . If for all integers n > 2, an = an−1 + an−2 , is a8 > 40?
1) a7 > 28
2) a6 > 12
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 194
Solution 124. Notice that when we let a1 = 1 and a2 = 2, we are beginning
with the smallest possible values for the first two terms of the sequence. Since
we find the next terms by adding, using these values will give us the smallest
possible value of every term in the sequence, including a8 . Since we get this
sequence when the first two terms are 1 and 2:

1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, . . .

the smallest possible value of a8 is 34. We’ll get the second smallest possible
value of a8 by using the second smallest possible values of a1 and a2 , which are
1 and 3:
1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 18, 29, 47
so the second smallest possible value of a8 is 47.
So the only situation in which a8 is not greater than 40 is precisely when a1 = 1
and a2 = 2. So if we can be sure we do not have that sequence, we can be sure
that a8 > 40.
If Statement 1 is true, we cannot have the sequence where a1 = 1 and a2 = 2,
because in that sequence, a7 = 21. So Statement 1 is sufficient.
Now if we look at the sequence above with the smallest possible values, we see
that a6 = 13. That’s the smallest possible value of a6 , so a6 is always greater
than 12, so Statement 2 gives us no new information and is not sufficient, and
the answer is A.
There is a different way to see that Statement 1 is sufficient here. Notice that
the sequence is constantly increasing, and a7 = a6 + a5 . Since a6 > a5 , then
a6 must be greater than half of a7 , and a5 must be less than half of a7 . Since,
from Statement 1, a7 > 28, then a6 must be greater than 14, and a6 + a7 must
be greater than 28 + 14 = 42. But a6 + a7 = a8 , so this proves that a8 > 42.

Sample Question 125. In a sequence b1 , b2 , b3 , . . . in which b1 is the first term,

b1 = 8, and for all integers n > 1, bn = (−1)n−1 (bn−1 − 1). What is the sum of
the first 43 terms of this sequence?
A) 1
B) 13
C) 21
D) 29
E) 43
Solution 125. We can work out the first few terms of the sequence:

b1 = 8
b2 = (−1)2−1 (b1 − 1) = (−1)(8 − 1) = −7
b3 = (−1)3−1 (b2 − 1) = (1)(−7 − 1) = −8
b4 = (−1)4−1 (b3 − 1) = (−1)(−8 − 1) = 9
b5 = (−1)5−1 (b4 − 1) = (1)(9 − 1) = 8

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 195
Now you may notice that when we compute b6 , we will plug an even value in
for n when we evaluate (−1)n−1 , and we will plug in 8 when we evaluate bn−1 .
That is, the calculation will be identical to what we did when we found b2 . So
b6 = b2 will be true, and similarly b7 = b3 will be true, and so on. The sequence
is thus
8, −7, −8, 9, 8, −7, −8, 9, 8, −7, −8, 9, . . .
The sum of any four consecutive terms in this sequence is 8 − 7 − 8 + 9 = 2.
When we add the first 40 terms, we add ten sets of four consecutive terms, so
the sum of the first 40 terms is 20. Then we need to add the 41st , 42nd and 43rd
terms, which are 8, −7 and −8, and since these sum to −7, the sum of the first
43 terms is thus 20 − 7 = 13.
In some questions with a recursive definition, we are given later terms and
need to determine if we can work backwards to find earlier terms. Here, you
would use the definition and the later terms to develop equations for the earlier
terms, then use standard algebraic techniques like substitution to eliminate
unknowns:
Sample Question 126. In a sequence a1 , a2 , . . ., the first two terms a1 and a2
an−1
are positive, and for all integers n > 2, an = . What is the value of a3 ?
an−2
1) a6 = 2
2) a7 = 1
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 126. Using Statement 1, we know a6 = 2, and using the definition of
the sequence, we know
a5
a6 =
a4
a5
So 2 = , and a5 = 2a4 . We also know, using the definition of the sequence,
a4
that
a4
a5 =
a3
and now we can substitute, since a5 = 2a4 , to find
a4
2a4 =
a3
1
2=
a3
1
a3 =
2

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 196
and Statement 1 is sufficient.
Using Statement 2 alone, we know, since the two Statements must be consistent,
1
that it is possible that a3 = . But if a7 = 1, it is also possible, since we divide
2
the two previous terms to find the next, that the sequence is simply

1, 1, 1, 1, . . .

and a3 might also equal 1. So Statement 2 is not sufficient, and the answer is
A.
In rare questions, a recursive definition will combine more than 2 terms, but
in almost any such case, it will be possible to quickly simplify the situation. In
the question below, one sequence s1 , s2 , . . . is defined using several terms from
another sequence:
Sample Question 127. For a sequence a1 , a2 , . . . then for any positive integer
n, the partial sum sn is defined to be equal to the sum of the first n terms of the
sequence. If s9 and s8 are partial sums of a sequence a1 , a2 , . . . ., then s9 − s8 =
A) a8
B) a9
C) a9 − a8
D) a8 − a7
E) a8 + a7
Solution 127. Since s9 = a1 +a2 +. . .+a7 +a8 +a9 and s8 = a1 +a2 +. . .+a7 +a8 ,
we have that s9 − s8 = a9 .

15.4 Infinity
Other questions will define a property of an infinite sequence, and ask what
conclusions may be drawn from that property. Such questions tend to simply
be logic problems, where they are primarily testing whether you confuse the
concept of ‘infinite’ with the concept of ‘everything’. If an infinite sequence
contains, say, an infinite number of even numbers, that does not necessarily
mean that every even number is in the sequence, nor does it mean that every
number in the sequence is even. If your sequence is just, in increasing order, all
of the positive multiples of 5, then that sequence misses a lot of even numbers (4
is not in the sequence, for example) and does not consist solely of even numbers
(15 is in the sequence, for example).
Sample Question 128. Sequence S is an infinite sequence of positive integers
in which each term after the first is greater than the preceding term. If S contains
an infinite number of primes, which of the following MUST be true?
I) 3 is in S.
II) S contains an infinite number of odd integers.
III) 9 is not in S.

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 197
A) none
B) I only
C) II only
D) II and III only
E) I, II and III
Solution 128. S need not contain all primes, only an infinite number, so we
cannot be sure that 3 is in S. S may also contain any number of non-primes, so
9 may certainly be in S. Since S contains an infinite number of different primes
(the sequence is increasing from one term to the next, so all of its elements are
different), it must contain an infinite number of odd numbers. So the answer is
II only.
Sample Question 129. Does the infinite sequence a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . contain at least
one term which is negative?
1) an < an−1 for all integers n > 1.
2) a1 = 1.
A) Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) is not sufficient.
B) Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) is not sufficient.
C) BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE
is sufficient.
D) EACH statement ALONE is sufficient.
E) Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.
Solution 129. From Statement 1 we learn that the sequence is constantly
decreasing – that is, that each term after the first is smaller than the term
before it. Still, that is no guarantee that the sequence contains any negative
1
values. For example, our sequence might be defined by the rule an = for all
n
positive integers n. Then our sequence would look like
1 1 1 1
1, , , , , . . .
2 3 4 5
and while our sequence begins with 1, and constantly decreases, still every term
is positive. So the two Statements combined are not sufficient, and the answer
is E.

15.5 Arithmetic Sequences and Series

If you have ever seen any formulas for sequences (or sums of sequences, which
are called, in math, series), some of those formulas will have been for what are
known as arithmetic sequences. An arithmetic sequence is one that is ‘equally
spaced’, so, for example
10, 17, 24, 31, 38
is a finite arithmetic sequence, increasing by 7 each time. Most algebraic se-
quence questions on the GMAT are not, however, about arithmetic sequences.
When a question is about an equally spaced sequence or list, it is normally a

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 198
statistics question. That’s because we normally use the average of these lists to
compute their sum. For a complete description of how to work with arithmetic
sequences, consult my Statistics book, but if you do not have that book, in brief,
to sum an equally spaced sequence:

• we will use the fact that in any equally spaced list, the average (or mean)
is always equal to the median, and is also always equal to the average of
the smallest and largest terms

• since, by definition of the average,

sum
average =
n
then the sum of such a list is equal to the average times n, the number of
terms

• you can find the number of terms, n, using this formula, if your list is
equally spaced:
range
n= +1
space
where the range is the largest term minus the smallest, and ‘space’ is the
distance between consecutive terms

So if we need to sum this sequence:

10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 80

without adding all the terms individually, we can find the average, which is
80 + 10
the average of the smallest and largest terms, so is = 45, and find the
2
number of terms using the formula above:
range 80 − 10
n= +1= + 1 = 11
space 7

and multiply, to get (11)(45) = 495.

15.6 Geometric Sequences

The only other sequence formulas you are likely to have seen apply to what are
called geometric sequences. Geometric sequences are sequences where you find
each successive term by multiplying the previous term by some constant (unlike
in an arithmetic sequence, where we add a constant to find each successive
term). So this sequence, for example, is a geometric sequence, where we are
1
multiplying by to find the next term each time:
2
1 1
8, 4, 2, 1, , , . . .
2 4

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 199
Geometric sequences are rare in general on the GMAT. One situation in which
you always encounter them is in compound interest problems; if you apply, say,
a 10% interest rate to a $7000 investment repeatedly, the amounts you’ll get
each time you apply interest will belong to a geometric sequence:

7000, 7000(1.1), 7000(1.1)2 , 7000(1.1)3 , . . .

but even in those questions, a geometric sequence formula will be of no use. If

you do see a question which contains a geometric sequence, there will always be
some way to answer it without a pre-memorized formula (and that way will be
easier than using the formula). So you can safely forget any formulas you might
have learned. This is one example of a question with a geometric sequence in
it, but for which a formula is not helpful:
Sample Question 130. In a sequence b1 , b2 , b3 , . . ., the first term b1 is equal to
3, and for all integers n > 1, bn = rbn−1 , where r is a positive constant. In terms
of r, the product of the first 16 terms of this sequence is
A) (3)(r15 )
B) (316 )(r16 )
C) (316 )(r120 )
D) (316 )(r136 )
E) (3136 )(r15 )
Solution 130. We can write down the first few terms of the sequence:

b1 = 3
b2 = rb1 = 3r
b3 = rb2 = 3r2
b4 = 3r3
...
b16 = 3r15

Now if we multiply these 16 terms we have

(3)(3r)(3r2 )(3r3 ) . . . (3r14 )(3r15 ) = (316 )(r1+2+3+...+14+15 )

To find the exponent on r, we need to sum the integers from 1 to 15 inclusive.

This is an equally spaced list, so its average is equal to the average of the smallest
and largest terms, so is equal to 8. Since by the definition of the average, the
sum of a list is equal to its average times the number of terms in the list, the
sum of the integers from 1 to 15 inclusive is (8)(15) = 120. So the answer is
(316 )(r120 ).

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 200
16 Conclusion
I hope you find this book useful.

Ian Stewart, 2019

Ian
c Stewart 2019. This copy for the exclusive use of Aflaam Messih 201