In our analytic number theory class we were given the following problem as homework: prove rigorously that for large $x$ the number of primes in $(1,x]$ exceeds that in $(x,2x]$.
In class we proved the prime number theorem, and then proceeded to prove several results such as $\pi(x) = Li(x) +O(x^\theta \ln x)$ and the explicit formula for $\psi_1(x)$.
This is clearly quite intuitive but I'm lost as to what I can use to prove the result. Any help is greatly appreciated.

While this isn't my main area of study, I do think we are stuck with proving $Li(2x)<2Li(x)$ (ignoring $O(x^{\theta}\ln(x))$) for large $x$.
The definition of the offset logarithmic integral is
$$Li(x)=\int_2^x\frac{dt}{\ln(t)}$$
We want to take this and prove that $Li(2x)<2Li(x)$.
Since $\frac{d}{dx}Li(x)=\frac1{\ln(x)}>0$, we see that the offset logarithmic integral has a positive derivative. Since $\frac{d}{dx}\frac1{\ln(x)}=\frac{-1}{x(\ln(x))^2}<0$, we know this function is concave.
This implies that for large enough $x$, $Li(2x)<2Li(x)$ since $Li(x)$ is concave. I'm not quite sure how to do a formal proof or whatever, but I imagine we can go along those lines.
If $Li(2x)<2Li(x)$, I would think
$$\frac{d}{dx}Li(2x)<\frac{d}{dx}2Li(x)$$
$$\frac2{\ln(2x)}<\frac2{\ln(x)}$$
And the last line is much easier to prove.