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 \( |x| < 3 \).
\[ \boxed{\text{Both statements are needed to conclude that } |x| < 3} \]


| IPC crimes | SLL crimes | Other crimes | |
| Delhi | * | * | * |
| Goa | * | 4 | * |
| Haryana | 8 | 6 | * |
| Karnataka | 3 | 2 | * |
| Kerala | * | 9 | * |
| Maharashtra | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| Puducherry | 13 | 29 | * |
| Tamil Nadu | 11 | 7 | * |
| Telangana | 6 | 9 | 8 |
| West Bengal | 17 | * | 16 |
