PS GMATPREP MEDIAN MEAN

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Problem Solving |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:40 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by lightbulb » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:43 pm
I have an elimination based approach, here goes:

Let the pieces be a1, a2, a3, a4, a5.
We know that:
- n = 5
- Mean = 124
- a3 = 140
- a4, a5 are at least 140
- a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 = 124*5 = 620
- a1 + a2 + a4 + a5 = 620 - a3 = 480


First, strike off choices 130 and 140, otherwise mean can never be 124.

Now, consider a1 = 110.
This implies, a2 + a4 + a5 = 480 - a1 = 480 - 110 = 370.
If a4 and a5 are at least 140 each, then a4+a5 is at aleast 280.
This impiles, a2 is at most 370 - 280 = 90. This cannot be true since a1 is 110.
So strike off choice 110.

Now, consider a1 = 100.
This impiles a2 is at most 480 - 100 - 280 = 100.
This makes sense, as the Mean also checks out.

Perhaps someone can propose a better solution.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:30 am
Thanked: 4 times

Other Approach

by albertrahul » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:09 am
Other Approach:

Information Provided:
Total Length of 5 Pieces - 124 * 5 = 620
Median = 140 (Third piece in row ordered by length)

So if median is 140 then maximum of 3 pieces could be of length 140 and 2 could be pieces of shortest length.

140 * 3 = 420

Once you have this value (420), subtract it from 620 so we are left with 200 for rest 2 spots.

Divide 200 by 2, 100.

Its an alternative approach, I found it quick.
Hope that helps!

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:35 am
Thanked: 1 times

Re: Other Approach

by olika » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:37 am
albertrahul wrote:Other Approach:

Information Provided:
Total Length of 5 Pieces - 124 * 5 = 620
Median = 140 (Third piece in row ordered by length)

So if median is 140 then maximum of 3 pieces could be of length 140 and 2 could be pieces of shortest length.

140 * 3 = 420

Once you have this value (420), subtract it from 620 so we are left with 200 for rest 2 spots.

Divide 200 by 2, 100.

Its an alternative approach, I found it quick.
Hope that helps!

Hi, Albertrahul!
Can you explane, why you devide 200 by 2?

The fact is that I've used the same approach in my solution. But I was confused with the last operation (when you devide 200 by 2). Don't you think that the first and the second terms in the set might be 90 and 110, respectively? In this case, the least number would be 90...
According to the right aswer, I am wrong... I just can't understand why :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:14 am
Location: Florida
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:710

Re: Other Approach

by lion147 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:06 am
olika wrote:
albertrahul wrote:Other Approach:

Information Provided:
Total Length of 5 Pieces - 124 * 5 = 620
Median = 140 (Third piece in row ordered by length)

So if median is 140 then maximum of 3 pieces could be of length 140 and 2 could be pieces of shortest length.

140 * 3 = 420

Once you have this value (420), subtract it from 620 so we are left with 200 for rest 2 spots.

Divide 200 by 2, 100.

Its an alternative approach, I found it quick.
Hope that helps!

Hi, Albertrahul!
Can you explane, why you devide 200 by 2?

The fact is that I've used the same approach in my solution. But I was confused with the last operation (when you devide 200 by 2). Don't you think that the first and the second terms in the set might be 90 and 110, respectively? In this case, the least number would be 90...
According to the right aswer, I am wrong... I just can't understand why :)
After re-reading the question I think the answer is because we want to know the maximum possible length of the shortest piece of wood.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:35 am
Thanked: 1 times

Re: Other Approach

by olika » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:38 pm
After re-reading the question I think the answer is because we want to know the maximum possible length of the shortest piece of wood.
Hi lion147,

You are absolutely right! Thank you :)
I read the question not carefully enough :lol: