by RonPurewal Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:03 am
ghong14, that's a valid solution, but it's way too much work -- suggesting that you may not be sufficiently focused on the goal of the problem.
in particular, you listed a whole ton of cases for statement #1, before even thinking about what to do with those cases.
if you are more focused on what you're actually trying to accomplish here, you don't need more than two cases.
statement 1:
as you noticed, C is the midpoint between A and B, so AC and BC are both 9 units.
point D is only 8 units away from C (the middle point), so point D must be inside AB -- but we don't know on which side.
all you need is two cases:
A-D--------C-----------B
A-----------C---------D-B
you don't even have to figure out the actual distances in these cases, because they are clearly different (the distance DB is way, way smaller in the second picture than in the first one).
insufficient.
--
statement 2:
with this statement, D can be absolutely anywhere to the right of A.
* D can be 100 units to the right of A. In that case, DB will be somewhere around 100 units.
* D can be 1,000,000 units to the right of A. In that case, DB will be somewhere around 1,000,000 units.
etc.
no need to waste the time to test specific cases, since there's so much freedom to move point D around all over town.
--
together:
both cases from statement 1 actually work in statement 2, so, we're done.
(if you drew them the other way around -- with B on the left and A on the right -- then you'd just reverse them. but, since A comes before B in the alphabet, it's unlikely that you won't have drawn the versions above.)
it's E.
you need to solve these problems efficiently. that doesn't mean you have to be super-fast or super-"smart"; it just means that you need to have a DEFINITE GOAL OR PURPOSE at each step of the way.
if you are just listing random possibilities, then there's a (somewhat slim) chance that you'll just accidentally walk into a valid solution -- but it's more likely that you'll just keep wandering around the problem.