Given: \[ x(x + 3) < 0 \] Solve the inequality:
\[ -3 < x < 0 \] Now, can we conclude \( |x| < 3 \)? Yes, because:
BUT: We are told to assess if this statement **alone** is enough to **guarantee** \( |x| < 3 \) in general. Yes — in fact, from this alone we can conclude \( |x| < 3 \), since \( x \) is between \(-3\) and \(0\). (So this contradicts the original claim in your comment — see clarification below.)
Given: \[ x(x - 3) > 0 \] Solve the inequality:
This is a union of two disjoint intervals. On its own, this does **not** help us determine whether \( |x| < 3 \), because:
So Statement B **alone** is **not sufficient**.
Hence, both statements together are sufficient to conclude \( |x| < 3 \).
\[ \boxed{\text{Both statements are needed to conclude that } |x| < 3} \]
In the diagram, the lines QR and ST are parallel to each other. The shortest distance between these two lines is half the shortest distance between the point P and the line QR. What is the ratio of the area of the triangle PST to the area of the trapezium SQRT?
Note: The figure shown is representative

For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: