# Question: 2x over y

## Comment on 2x over y

### Why do we have (y -ve for

Why do we have (y -ve for first statement) --if we multiply both sides by y (-ve or +ve) we get rid of Y and we are left with 2x > 10 ---which gives unique result i.e. x> 5 ### The problem with that

The problem with that approach (multiplying both sides by y) is that we don't know whether y is positive or negative.

If y is negative, we must reverse the inequality sign. If y is positive, the direction of the inequality sign stays the same.

### So is it safe to say you

So is it safe to say you shouldn't assume +/- for a variable in a DS question? I just assumed y was positive because it was written as y, and not -y. ### That's correct. Having or not

That's correct. Having or not having a negative symbol in front of a variable doesn't tell us anything about whether that variable is positive or negative.
For example, x can be negative or positive.
Likewise, -x can be negative or positive.

### then in the second case how

then in the second case how do we know y is positive? ### While rewriting the

While rewriting the inequality in statement 2, we are able to avoid multiplying or dividing both sides of the inequality by a variable. So, in the end, we can be certain that y is greater than zero.

### If in above problem assume it

If in above problem assume it turns out that y is negative as the outcome of second equation, answer still be C, right? Logic is by combining we can arrive to a conclusion that x is not positive. Please correct if wrong. ### IF we had been able to

IF we had been able to conclude (from statement 2) that y is negative, then the answer would be E.

From statement 1, we learned that, if y is negative, then x < 5

So, when we combine the two statements, we can conclude that x < 5

The target question asks "Is x negative?"

So, if x < 5, then x COULD equal 4, which means x IS positive.
Conversely, if x < 5, then x COULD equal -1, which means x is NOT positive.
Since we cannot answer the target question with certainty, the combined statements are not sufficient.

### Brilliant explanation in

Brilliant explanation in simplest way.