Need expert help

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Need expert help

by voodoo_child » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:38 am
In a room filled with 7 people, 4 people have exactly 1 sibling in the room and 3 people have exactly 2 siblings in the room. If two individuals are selected from the room at random, what is the probability that those two individuals are NOT siblings?
5/21
3/7
4/7
5/7
16/21

OA - E


Solution -

5 sibling pairs (ABCD = AB, CD
EFG = EF, FG, EG)

Prob = 1 - P(people are siblings)
= 1 - 5/21
=16/21

My question is that while computing the total number of combinations, we calculated 7C2 = 21.

However, while picking two people from 4, we only considered 2 pairs. Why? Why didn't we choose

ABCD => 4C2 = 6????
EFG => 3C2 = 3

Please explain your thought process

Thanks
Source: — Problem Solving |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:18 pm
voodoo_child wrote:My question is that while computing the total number of combinations, we calculated 7C2 = 21.

However, while picking two people from 4, we only considered 2 pairs. Why? Why didn't we choose

ABCD => 4C2 = 6????
EFG => 3C2 = 3
So, A & B are siblings (call them the Jones), C & D are siblings (call them the Smiths), and E & F & G are siblings (call them the Ramsbottoms).

From a set of four, there are indeed 6 pairs (4C2), but here, are only considering the pairs that are siblings. Picking one of the Jones with one of the Smiths is not a sibling pair, even though each one of them would have another sibling in the room. Does that make sense? From among A, B, C, and D, the only two pairs the represent pairs of siblings are the two Jones (A & B) and the two Smiths (C & D).

Meanwhile, for the Ramsbottoms kids, any two of the three of them would be a pair of siblings, so 3C2 = 3.

Thus, 5 possible pairs of siblings, from 7C2 = 21l, so there's a probability of 5/21 of picking a pair of siblings when we pick a pair at random, and probability of 16/21 that they're NOT siblings.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:13 am
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by krusta80 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:11 pm
When dealing with small numbers, it almost always helps to use some sort of visual representation, whether in your head or on paper. I find this to be especially helpful when dealing with groups and subgroups.

In this problem, the first step is to determine how the 7 people are arranged. Let's represent each person with a circle, and let's connect each sibling to its other with a line (like a molecule of sorts)...

Image

As you can see, each group of people with exactly one sibling is represented on the left part of the picture, while the group of people with exactly two siblings is on the right.

Now, since we are dealing with pretty small numbers here, let's just go ahead and count the number of possible pairs of people (aka circles) that are NOT connected. We'll start with the upper left circle (highlighted green below).

Image



Each person that qualifies as a non-sibling (aka not connected to the green circle) is highlighted red. There are 5 such pairings involving the green cirlcle, so we write that down to be added to the total.

Now, since we have found all possible pairs of people involving the upper left circle, we remove it from our picture and count the number of pairs with the next circle...

Image


Again, there are 5 such pairings...which brings our total to 10.

As before, we remove the green circle and continue...


Image


This time there are 3 such pairings...total is 13.

When we remove this cirlcle and do the same, we can see that it will be another 3 pairings, bringing the grand total to 16. Note that once we remove the fourth circle, all of the remaining cirlces represent siblings, so we are done.

Of course, using the combination formula for the total possible pairs of people from 7 is still needed for the denominator: 7C2 = 21.

The answer is 16/21. Hopefully this helps to simplify dealing with groups, as often sticking to rote formulas in these types of problems can lead to confusion and unneeded complications.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:29 pm
Mike and Krusta80,
First of all, I would like to thank you for detailed input. However, my confusion is this:

we have computed *all* possible pairs using 7C2. I am good with this.

However, while computing one sibling pair, we have restricted our choice. As in, we have named A&B = Jones and C&D = Smiths. However, it is possible that A&C = Romneys and B &D = Santorums.

Similarly, A&D could be Pauls and B&C could be Gingrichs.

My confusion is that why are we ignoring other possible combinations highlighted above? Essentially,
4C2 gives us 6 *possible* siblings. Out of which, the correct method considers only 2. We leave out the other four possible combinations. I am definitely missing something. Can you please help me ?

For the 2 siblings, 3C2 = 3. Hence, it doesn't matter what method is used.

Please help me :(

Appreciate your response.

Voodoo Child

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:13 am
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by krusta80 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:53 pm
voodoo_child wrote:Mike and Krusta80,
First of all, I would like to thank you for detailed input. However, my confusion is this:

we have computed *all* possible pairs using 7C2. I am good with this.

However, while computing one sibling pair, we have restricted our choice. As in, we have named A&B = Jones and C&D = Smiths. However, it is possible that A&C = Romneys and B &D = Santorums.

Similarly, A&D could be Pauls and B&C could be Gingrichs.

My confusion is that why are we ignoring other possible combinations highlighted above? Essentially,
4C2 gives us 6 *possible* siblings. Out of which, the correct method considers only 2. We leave out the other four possible combinations. I am definitely missing something. Can you please help me ?

For the 2 siblings, 3C2 = 3. Hence, it doesn't matter what method is used.

Please help me :(

Appreciate your response.

Voodoo Child
I think I'm seeing where you're getting caught up. Do you see how the way Mike and I represented the 7 people is the only way that works for the wording of the problem?

If you have two people (out of a group of at least two people) with exactly one sibling, that HAS to mean that two of the people are siblings with one another. In this problem, you have four people with exactly one sibling, which means that there are two different sets of two siblings. It is the only way that can work.

I just want to make sure that this part makes sense to you fully.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:58 pm
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3835
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Milpitas, CA
Thanked: 1854 times
Followed by:523 members
GMAT Score:770

by Anurag@Gurome » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:50 pm
Let the 7 people are A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

There are 4 people with exactly 1 sibling each, so we have two pairs of siblings (A-B; C-D).
As there are 3 people with exactly 2 siblings each: we have one pair of triple siblings (D-E-F).

Number of ways of selecting 2 people out of 7 = 7C2 = 21
Number of ways of selecting 2 siblings = 3C2 + 2C2 + 2C2 = 3 + 1 + 1 = 5
Probability that the two selected individuals are siblings = 5/21
Therefore, probability that the two selected individuals are NOT siblings = 1 - 5/21 = [spoiler]16/21[/spoiler]

The correct answer is E.
Anurag Mairal, Ph.D., MBA
GMAT Expert, Admissions and Career Guidance
Gurome, Inc.
1-800-566-4043 (USA)

Join Our Facebook Groups
GMAT with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/272466352793633/
Admissions with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/461459690536574/
Career Advising with Gurome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/360435787349781/

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:56 pm
voodoo_child wrote:Mike and Krusta80,
First of all, I would like to thank you for detailed input. However, my confusion is this:

we have computed *all* possible pairs using 7C2. I am good with this.

However, while computing one sibling pair, we have restricted our choice. As in, we have named A&B = Jones and C&D = Smiths. However, it is possible that A&C = Romneys and B &D = Santorums.

Similarly, A&D could be Pauls and B&C could be Gingrichs.

My confusion is that why are we ignoring other possible combinations highlighted above? Essentially,
4C2 gives us 6 *possible* siblings. Out of which, the correct method considers only 2. We leave out the other four possible combinations. I am definitely missing something. Can you please help me ?

For the 2 siblings, 3C2 = 3. Hence, it doesn't matter what method is used.

Please help me :(

Appreciate your response.

Voodoo Child
Dear Voodoo Child:

I don't know whether what krusta80 said above was helpful for you, and I don't know if you check out GMATGuruNY's good explanation on that other page. I will add my 2¢ to what these fine people said, just to make sure you understand. You are asking excellent questions, and you certainly deserve to have your questions answers. :)

I will reiterate what krusta80 said: I believe you are misunderstanding the question. It's a very difficult prompt, so it's not surprising that the prompt itself generates some confusion. Let's look at the question again:

In a room filled with 7 people, 4 people have exactly 1 sibling in the room and 3 people have exactly 2 siblings in the room.

I'll first say: I have read hundreds and hundreds of GMAT math prompts, and most of these problems I can solve in my sleep at this point, but with this question, I had to re-read the prompt two or three times to make any sense of it. It is an extremely challenging prompt. It's totally understandable that it's confusing.

Now, if person A has one sibling in the room, and that sibling is B, that means A & B are siblings of each other. They're in one family. That's one pair accounted for.

Similarly, C & D could be siblings with each other, and that would account for the other two people with exactly one sibling in the room. They're in another family.

E & F & G would have to be all siblings with each other in a third family.

Let's be very concrete here --- instead of A & B, let's say that it's me and my sister. Instead of C & D, it's you and your brother (I have no idea whether you have a brother, so for the moment, let's pretend). If I am picked with my sister, then that's two sibling that have been picked. If you are picked with your brother, that's also two sibling that are pick. If I am picked with your brother, or you are picked with my sister, then neither of those constitutes a pair of siblings -- I and your brother are not siblings to each other. You are not a blood relative of mine, so if you and I are picked, or you and my sister are picked, that's a pair of people who are not blood-relatives, who therefore are not siblings with one another.

Perhaps the confusion is: when it talks about a pair of siblings --- it's not just saying that if you & I are picked, we are siblings, simply by virtue of the fact that I have a sister in my life, and separately you (in this make believe example) have a brother in your life. That's not what it means to pick two siblings. To say that two people are siblings means they are siblings to each other, which is to say that they share at least one biological parent; it's a very specific relationship. That's why A & B can be siblings, and C & D can be siblings, but not AC, AD, BC, or BD.

This is what I was trying to indicate by calling A & B the "Jones" family, and calling C & D the "Smith" family. When you pick AB or CD, you have two people from the same family, but when you pick AC, AD, BC, or BD, you have two people from different families. Two people from different families can't be siblings to one another.

This is what's different from the three children, E, F, and G, of the "Ramsbottom" family. They all grew up together --- they are all siblings with each other, have the same parents, so any of the pairs (EF, EG, FG) will be a pair of siblings.

Does this help clear up your confusion about this problem? I really want to make sure you understand this problem.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3650
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:27 am
Location: India
Thanked: 267 times
Followed by:80 members
GMAT Score:760

by sanju09 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:01 am
voodoo_child wrote:In a room filled with 7 people, 4 people have exactly 1 sibling in the room and 3 people have exactly 2 siblings in the room. If two individuals are selected from the room at random, what is the probability that those two individuals are NOT siblings?
5/21
3/7
4/7
5/7
16/21

OA - E


Solution -

5 sibling pairs (ABCD = AB, CD
EFG = EF, FG, EG)

Prob = 1 - P(people are siblings)
= 1 - 5/21
=16/21

My question is that while computing the total number of combinations, we calculated 7C2 = 21.

However, while picking two people from 4, we only considered 2 pairs. Why? Why didn't we choose

ABCD => 4C2 = 6????
EFG => 3C2 = 3

Please explain your thought process


Thanks
All explanations are great and do not leave much to say. I believe in playing simple. Take the 7 people A-G, such that A, B, C, and D have exactly 1 sibling, and let the sibling pairs to be A-B and C-D. Further let E, F, and G are siblings so that each of them have exactly 2 siblings in the room. When a pair is selected, order doesn't matter; hence 2 siblings can be obtained in (A-B, C-D, E-F, F-G, and G-E) 5 ways, whereas a pair out of 7 can be selected in 7C2 = 21 ways. Hence the probability of selecting a sibling pair is 5/21, and the probability that those two individuals are NOT siblings is 1 - (5/21) = [spoiler]16/21

E
[/spoiler]

To answer your main doubt (in bold), voodoo_child, to find non-sibling pairs from a lot, it's far easier to first find the number of sibling pairs and then subtract it from all possible pairs to find the number of non-sibling pairs. Please understand that not all pairs chosen from A-B-C-D are siblings, hence we cannot use 4C2 to find either sibling pairs or non-sibling pairs. Although, all three in the group E-F-G are siblings, hence any pair chosen out of it will represent a sibling pair. So, perchance we can use 3C2 here pretty safely.
The mind is everything. What you think you become. -Lord Buddha



Sanjeev K Saxena
Quantitative Instructor
The Princeton Review - Manya Abroad
Lucknow-226001

www.manyagroup.com

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:07 am
Mike@Magoosh wrote: Dear Voodoo Child:

I don't know whether what krusta80 said above was helpful for you, and I don't know if you check out GMATGuruNY's good explanation on that other page. I will add my 2¢ to what these fine people said, just to make sure you understand. You are asking excellent questions, and you certainly deserve to have your questions answers. :)

I will reiterate what krusta80 said: I believe you are misunderstanding the question. It's a very difficult prompt, so it's not surprising that the prompt itself generates some confusion. Let's look at the question again:

In a room filled with 7 people, 4 people have exactly 1 sibling in the room and 3 people have exactly 2 siblings in the room.

I'll first say: I have read hundreds and hundreds of GMAT math prompts, and most of these problems I can solve in my sleep at this point, but with this question, I had to re-read the prompt two or three times to make any sense of it. It is an extremely challenging prompt. It's totally understandable that it's confusing.

Now, if person A has one sibling in the room, and that sibling is B, that means A & B are siblings of each other. They're in one family. That's one pair accounted for.

Similarly, C & D could be siblings with each other, and that would account for the other two people with exactly one sibling in the room. They're in another family.

E & F & G would have to be all siblings with each other in a third family.

Let's be very concrete here --- instead of A & B, let's say that it's me and my sister. Instead of C & D, it's you and your brother (I have no idea whether you have a brother, so for the moment, let's pretend). If I am picked with my sister, then that's two sibling that have been picked. If you are picked with your brother, that's also two sibling that are pick. If I am picked with your brother, or you are picked with my sister, then neither of those constitutes a pair of siblings -- I and your brother are not siblings to each other. You are not a blood relative of mine, so if you and I are picked, or you and my sister are picked, that's a pair of people who are not blood-relatives, who therefore are not siblings with one another.

Perhaps the confusion is: when it talks about a pair of siblings --- it's not just saying that if you & I are picked, we are siblings, simply by virtue of the fact that I have a sister in my life, and separately you (in this make believe example) have a brother in your life. That's not what it means to pick two siblings. To say that two people are siblings means they are siblings to each other, which is to say that they share at least one biological parent; it's a very specific relationship. That's why A & B can be siblings, and C & D can be siblings, but not AC, AD, BC, or BD.

This is what I was trying to indicate by calling A & B the "Jones" family, and calling C & D the "Smith" family. When you pick AB or CD, you have two people from the same family, but when you pick AC, AD, BC, or BD, you have two people from different families. Two people from different families can't be siblings to one another.

This is what's different from the three children, E, F, and G, of the "Ramsbottom" family. They all grew up together --- they are all siblings with each other, have the same parents, so any of the pairs (EF, EG, FG) will be a pair of siblings.

Does this help clear up your confusion about this problem? I really want to make sure you understand this problem.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)

Dear Mike, Krusta80, Anurag and Mitch,

I would like to thank you again for answering my question. However, I still have some follow-up questions that I have detailed below:

I see your explanation, and it makes sense. Let's consider that there are 7 people in the room.

There are seven people : A B C D E F G

Now, 4 people have exactly 1 sibling.

Hence, there must be exactly 1 sibling in a group of four people.

ie. A B C D have exactly 1 sibling.

Therefore,
IF A *IS* a sibling of B. Therefore, C WILL be a sibling of D.
IF B *IS* a sibling of C. Therefore, A WILL be a sibling of D.
IF C *IS* a sibling of D. Therefore, A WILL be a sibling of B.
IF D *IS* a sibling of A. Therefore, B WILL be a sibling of C.
IF B *IS* a sibling of D. Therefore, A WILL be a sibling of C.
IF A *IS* a sibling of C. Therefore, B WILL be a sibling of D.

There is a reason why I have underlined "IF". These are independent set of POSSIBILITIES for a group of four people with ONLY one sibling.

Why are we assuming that THE ONLY possible combination is (say) AB and CD? We dont know WHICH TWO people in the group are siblings.

I understand the logic that if A is a sibling of B, C HAS TO be a sibling of D. AND A CANNOT be a sibling of C or of D. That's okay. However, do we know that A is a sibling of B, C or D? That's what the question is.

If we assume that ONLY A is a sibling of B, then whatever you have posted makes sense. However, if we don't know who is sibling of whom, we need to calculate "ALL POSSIBLE" sibling combinations. Isn't it?

It is similar to a problem in which we have to find the probability that the same number will show up when the two dice are rolled together. The question is whether we know in advance that 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 will come up or shall we assume that 1 will come up. (We obviously have to assume that we are finding probability of the same number showing up on the dice. Or in other words, sibling pair.)

I am still not 100% clear. Please help me :( :cry:
This problem is really troubling me. I am definitely missing something.

-Voodoo Child

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:13 am
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by krusta80 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:03 pm
Voodo,

I can see that you are frustrated and concerned, but believe me that we will not stop until you get this, ok? :)

That said, I'm going to try to use your dice analogy and extend it to match the sibling problem, ok?

Let's say that we have 7 dice, which have already been rolled. Each die has a serial number etched into it, so that we can tell one die apart from another.

We have no idea what the serial numbers are on the dice (let's assume that the etching is microscopic), but we are told that upon being rolled, the following numbers are shown:

1. Two of the dice show the number 1
2. Two of the dice show the number 2
3. Three of the dice show the number 3

The question we are posed is the following: how many different ways can we select two dice from the group of seven, such that each die we select shows a different face value?

Do you see how the fact that each die has its own serial number has absolutely no bearing on the question?

Similarly, we do not need to know the names of the people in the group of 7...we simply need to know that the sibling relationships exist.


=======
Now, you can of course enumerate every possibility of names to relationships, but the answer will work out to be the same...kind of like working with a non-reduced fraction.

Example of how this could work with dice...

Quesion: What is the probability that two six-sided dice have the same face value?

Method 1: We realize that it doesn't matter what the first die is, as long as the second die matches the first die.

Therefore, the probabilty of both dice having the same face value is the same as the probability of the second die being the same as the first die. Since the first die can only be one value at a time, that probability is 1/6.

Method 2: We simply map out all possible values of the first die and then all possible values for the second die, count the total matches, and then divide by the grand total of posibilities:

Die 1 is 1
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (1) out of 6 possibilities

Die 1 is 2
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (2) out of 6 possibilities

Die 1 is 3
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (3) out of 6 possibilities

Die 1 is 4
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (4) out of 6 possibilities

Die 1 is 5
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (5) out of 6 possibilities

Die 1 is 6
Die 2 can be 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 --> 1 match (6) out of 6 possibilities

Total matches = 6
Total possibilities = 36

6/36 = 1/6

I encourage you to assign letters to the sibling problem and work it out the way you describe. You will see the symmetry for yourself I am sure.