Quant question from CAT

[phoenix.rkchr]

Following is the question from Manhattan CAT:

If ab ≠ 0, does a = b?

(1) xa = xb
(2) x = x2

I marked A.

Solution Given:
--------------
(1) INSUFFICIENT: If xa = xb, there are two possibilities. The first possibility is that x is any number other than 0 and 1, in which case a = b must be true. The other possibility is that x is either 0 or 1. If x is 0 or 1, then a and b could be anything, because 1 raised to any power is 1, and 0 raised to any power is 0. If x is 0 or 1, we will not be able to tell if a = b.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: This statement tells us nothing about a or b.

(1) AND (2) INSUFFICIENT: Whereas the second statement tells us nothing about a or b, it does tell us that x is either 0 or 1. We have know way of knowing whether a = b is true.

===========================================
Can any1 explain why the ans is E.

I think it should be A.
If ab ≠ 0 then a and b can not be 0 therefore Statement 1 is sufficient.

[phoenix.rkchr]

Sorry, I did not understand the explannation correctly earlier. :(

Now, it is clear.

Thanks

Following is the question from Manhattan CAT:

If ab ≠ 0, does a = b?

(1) xa = xb
(2) x = x2

I marked A.

Solution Given:
--------------
(1) INSUFFICIENT: If xa = xb, there are two possibilities. The first possibility is that x is any number other than 0 and 1, in which case a = b must be true. The other possibility is that x is either 0 or 1. If x is 0 or 1, then a and b could be anything, because 1 raised to any power is 1, and 0 raised to any power is 0. If x is 0 or 1, we will not be able to tell if a = b.

(2) INSUFFICIENT: This statement tells us nothing about a or b.

(1) AND (2) INSUFFICIENT: Whereas the second statement tells us nothing about a or b, it does tell us that x is either 0 or 1. We have know way of knowing whether a = b is true.

===========================================
Can any1 explain why the ans is E.

I think it should be A.
If ab ≠ 0 then a and b can not be 0 therefore Statement 1 is sufficient.

[RonPurewal]

so you don't need any further explanation, then?

[phoenix.rkchr]

so you don't need any further explanation, then?

Thank you for your kind reply.
Now I understood it. No need for further explanation.

Thanks

[mschwrtz]

perfect