All questions
Question 1
If x and y are real numbers, is x > y? (1) x^2 > y^2 (2) x + y > 0
- Only (1) is sufficient
- Only (2) is sufficient
- Both, neither alone (correct answer)
- Together not sufficient
Explanation: Since x^2 > y^2 is (x - y)(x + y) > 0, and statement (2) says x + y > 0, dividing by that positive factor gives x - y > 0, so x > y. Statement (1) alone is not enough: |-3| > |1| but -3 > 1 is false. Statement (2) alone is not enough either: 1 + 2 > 0 but 1 > 2 is false. The tempting error is treating x^2 > y^2 as if it directly implied x > y, which ignores negative numbers.
Question 2
If x and y are real numbers, is x > 0? (1) x + y > 0 (2) xy < 0
- Only (1) is sufficient
- Only (2) is sufficient
- Both, neither alone
- Together not sufficient (correct answer)
Explanation: From xy < 0, x and y have opposite signs. If x is positive and y is negative, x + y > 0 can hold, as with 3 and -1, so x > 0 is possible. If x is negative and y is positive, x + y > 0 can also hold, as with -1 and 3, so x > 0 fails. Both statements together still don't settle it. The tempting mistake is assuming opposite signs plus a positive sum forces x positive, but y can be the larger positive number.
Question 3
If x is a real number, is x > 1? (1) x + 1 > 0 (2) x^2 < x
- Only (1) is sufficient
- Only (2) is sufficient (correct answer)
- Both, neither alone
- Together not sufficient
Explanation: From (2), x^2 < x means x(x - 1) < 0, so x is between 0 and 1. That gives a definite no to the question, so (2) alone is sufficient. Statement (1) only says x > -1, which includes values above and below 1, so it is not sufficient. The tempting mistake is thinking x^2 < x only means x < 1, while ignoring that x must also be positive.
Question 4
If x and y are nonzero real numbers, is xy > 0? (1) x/y > 0 (2) x > y
- Only (1) is sufficient (correct answer)
- Only (2) is sufficient
- Both, neither alone
- Together not sufficient
Explanation: From (1), x/y > 0 means x and y have the same sign, so their product xy is positive. That makes (1) sufficient alone. (2) only tells you x is greater than y; for example 2 > 1 gives xy > 0, but 2 > -1 gives xy < 0, so it is not sufficient. The tempting wrong answer is to assume x > y means both are positive, but a larger number can still be negative.
Question 5
If x is a positive integer, is x divisible by 6? (1) x^2 is divisible by 12 (2) x is divisible by 3
- Only (1) is sufficient (correct answer)
- Only (2) is sufficient
- Both, neither alone
- Together not sufficient
Explanation: Because x is an integer, if x^2 is divisible by 12 = 4 x 3, then x must contain at least one factor 2 and one factor 3. So x is divisible by 6, and statement (1) alone is sufficient. Statement (2) only tells you x is divisible by 3, not by 2, so it is insufficient. The tempting error is thinking you need statement (2) as well, but the square already guarantees the factor 3.
Question 6
If x and y are positive integers, what is x? (1) x+y=6 (2) x2+y2=20
- (1) alone sufficient
- (2) alone sufficient
- Both together, not alone
- Together, not sufficient (correct answer)
Explanation: From x + y = 6, the positive integer pairs are (1,5), (2,4), (3,3), (4,2), and (5,1). Checking squares, only (2,4) and (4,2) give 4 + 16 = 20, so x could be 2 or 4. The tempting error is to think the statements determine x uniquely, but they only fix the unordered pair {2,4}.
Question 7
If x and y are integers, is x2>y2? (1) x>y (2) x+y>0
- (1) alone sufficient
- (2) alone sufficient
- Both together, not alone (correct answer)
- Together, not sufficient
Explanation: Together, x > y and x + y > 0 force x > |y|, because x is greater than both y and -y. That makes |x| > |y|, so x^2 > y^2. The tempting trap is thinking statement (1) alone is sufficient: x = 1 and y = -2 gives x > y but 1 > 4 is false.
Question 8
If m and n are nonzero integers, is nm>0? (1) m2n>0 (2) mn2<0
- (1) alone sufficient
- (2) alone sufficient
- Both together, not alone (correct answer)
- Together, not sufficient
Explanation: From (1), m^2 is positive, so n must be positive. From (2), n^2 is positive, so m must be negative. Together m/n is negative, so the answer is definitely no, which is sufficient. Neither statement alone works because each leaves the other variable's sign unknown. The tempting mistake is thinking a definite no means insufficient.
Question 9
For positive integers a,b, is a a multiple of b? (1) a2 is a multiple of b (2) a is a multiple of b2
- (1) alone sufficient
- (2) alone sufficient (correct answer)
- Both together, not alone
- Together, not sufficient
Explanation: From statement (2), if a is a multiple of b^2, then a = k(b2) = (kb)b for some integer k, so a is a multiple of b. Statement (2) alone is sufficient. Statement (1) is not: a^2 being a multiple of b does not force a to be. For example, a = 2 and b = 4 gives 4 a multiple of 4, yet 2 is not a multiple of 4. So the answer is (2) alone sufficient. Question 10
If x and y are nonzero integers, is yx<1? (1) x2<y2 (2) x<y
- (1) alone sufficient (correct answer)
- (2) alone sufficient
- Both together, not alone
- Together, not sufficient
Explanation: From x^2 < y^2 you get |x| < |y|. If x and y have opposite signs, x/y is negative, hence less than 1; if same sign, the absolute value of x/y is less than 1, so it is also less than 1. Thus (1) alone is sufficient. Statement (2) is not: x < y holds for -3 < -2, but -3/-2 = 1.5, which is not less than 1. The tempting error is to assume x<y always makes x/y <1, ignoring negative denominators.
Question 11
For real numbers x and y, is x3+y3>x2y+xy2?
(1) x>y>0
(2) x+y>0 and xy>0
- Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient. (correct answer)
- Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
- BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
- EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked.
Explanation: First, factor the expression: x³ + y³ - x²y - xy² = x³ - x²y + y³ - xy² = x²(x - y) + y²(y - x) = x²(x - y) - y²(x - y) = (x - y)(x² - y²) = (x - y)²(x + y). So we need (x - y)²(x + y) > 0. Since (x - y)² ≥ 0 always, this inequality holds if and only if (x - y)² > 0 and x + y > 0, OR (x - y)² = 0 and x + y > 0. The first condition means x ≠ y and x + y > 0. Statement (1): x > y > 0 implies x ≠ y and x + y > 0, so (x - y)²(x + y) > 0. This is sufficient. Statement (2): x + y > 0 and xy > 0 means both x and y have the same sign and their sum is positive, so both are positive. However, this doesn't tell us whether x ≠ y. If x = y, then (x - y)²(x + y) = 0, making the inequality false. If x ≠ y, the inequality is true. Statement (2) is insufficient.
Question 12
If m and n are positive integers, is nm in its simplest form?
(1) gcd(m+1,n+1)=1
(2) m and n are consecutive terms in the Fibonacci sequence
- Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
- Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient. (correct answer)
- BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
- EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked.
Explanation: For m/n to be in simplest form, we need gcd(m,n) = 1. Statement (1): gcd(m+1, n+1) = 1 doesn't guarantee gcd(m,n) = 1. For example, if m = 4 and n = 6, then gcd(5,7) = 1, but gcd(4,6) = 2 ≠ 1. Alternatively, if m = 3 and n = 5, then gcd(4,6) = 2 ≠ 1, so the condition isn't even satisfied. Let me try m = 2, n = 4: gcd(3,5) = 1, but gcd(2,4) = 2. Or m = 1, n = 3: gcd(2,4) = 2. The statement is insufficient. Statement (2): If m and n are consecutive Fibonacci numbers, then gcd(m,n) = 1. This is a well-known property: consecutive Fibonacci numbers are always coprime. This can be proven by the Euclidean algorithm: if F_k and F_{k+1} are consecutive Fibonacci numbers, then gcd(Fk+1, F_k) = gcd(F_k, Fk+1 - F_k) = gcd(F_k, Fk−1) = ... = gcd(F2, F1) = gcd(1,1) = 1. Therefore, statement (2) is sufficient. Question 13
Is the system of equations 2x+3y=7 and ax+by=c inconsistent?
(1) 2a=3b=7c
(2) a=4, b=6, and c=15
- Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
- Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
- BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
- EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked. (correct answer)
Explanation: A system is inconsistent when the coefficient ratios are equal but the constant ratio is different. For 2x + 3y = 7 and ax + by = c, inconsistency occurs when a/2 = b/3 but c/7 ≠ a/2 (equivalently c/7 ≠ b/3). Statement (1): This directly states the condition for inconsistency, so the system is inconsistent. Sufficient. Statement (2): a = 4, b = 6, c = 15. Check ratios: a/2 = 2, b/3 = 2, c/7 = 15/7 ≈ 2.14. Since a/2 = b/3 = 2 but c/7 ≠ 2, the system is inconsistent. Sufficient.
Question 14
If f(x)=x2+px+q where p and q are constants, does the equation f(x)=0 have two distinct real roots?
(1) p2−4q>0
(2) f(0)⋅f(1)<0
- Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
- Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient.
- BOTH statements TOGETHER are sufficient, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient.
- EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked. (correct answer)
Explanation: For f(x) = x² + px + q to have two distinct real roots, the discriminant must be positive: Δ = p² - 4q > 0. Statement (1): p² - 4q > 0 directly gives us the discriminant condition. This is sufficient for two distinct real roots. Statement (2): f(0) = q and f(1) = 1 + p + q. If f(0)·f(1) < 0, then q(1 + p + q) < 0, meaning q and (1 + p + q) have opposite signs. By the Intermediate Value Theorem, since f is continuous and f(0) and f(1) have opposite signs, there exists at least one root between 0 and 1. However, we need to verify this guarantees two distinct roots. If f(0) and f(1) have opposite signs, then the parabola crosses the x-axis at least once between x = 0 and x = 1. For a upward-opening parabola (coefficient of x² is 1 > 0), this crossing between 0 and 1, combined with the continuous nature and the fact that the parabola goes to +∞ as x → ±∞, guarantees exactly two distinct real roots. Statement (2) is sufficient.