GMAT PREP II (2) PROBABILITY QUESTION

Expert replies

pkw209: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 266; Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:46 pm; Thanked: 8 times; GMAT Score:690

by pkw209 » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:20 pm

Hey all-

Just finished GMAT PREP II and can't understand the answer to this question:

Q) A jar contains only B black marbles, W white marbles, and R red marbles. If one marble is to be chosen at random from a jar, is the probability that the marble chosen will be red greater than the probability that the marble chosen will be white?

1) r / (b + w) > w / (b + r)

2) b-w > r

If someone could provide a brief explanation, that would be great.

Thanks!

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Data Sufficiency | Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:20 pm

viju9162: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 434; Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm; Location: Bangalore; Thanked: 6 times; GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:55 am

Hi pkw209 ,

Is the answer
E ?

The question asks whether:

R/ B+W+R > W/B+W+R .

From (A), we cant determine as we are not sure about the denominator value

From (B), W can either be greater than R or can be lesser than R

ex: B-W > R

8-5> 1 ... Here W > R

8-2 > 6 ... Here R > W

Combining both A and B, values cant be determined for any of them..

Let me know the official answer.

"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group

Like this post

Stuart@KaplanGMAT: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 3225; Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pmFollowed by: 614 members; Location: Toronto; Thanked: 1710 times; GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:53 am

pkw209 wrote:Hey all-

Just finished GMAT PREP II and can't understand the answer to this question:

Q) A jar contains only B black marbles, W white marbles, and R red marbles. If one marble is to be chosen at random from a jar, is the probability that the marble chosen will be red greater than the probability that the marble chosen will be white?

1) r / (b + w) > w / (b + r)

2) b-w > r

If someone could provide a brief explanation, that would be great.

Thanks!

I really want to say that (1) is sufficient alone, although every time I try to prove it mathematically I end up with ugly quadratics.

(2) is easier, so let's start there. We can rewrite it as:

b > r + w

which shows that there are more than 50% black marbles, but says nothing at all about the relationship between red and white, so is insufficient alone.

(1) is tougher to deal with algebraically, so let's work theoretically instead.

We know that r, b and w are all non-negative integers.

If b=0, then we get:

r/w > w/r

which, since r and w are non-negative, we can safely rewrite as:

r^2 > w^2

and, since r and w are integers, conclude that r > w.

Since b appears in the denominator of each ratio, increasing the value of b won't change that fundamental relationship. For example, if b = 4, we'd get:

r/(4+w) > w/(r+4)

r(r+4) > w(w+4)

and again, since r and w are non-negative integers, r must be greater than w for that inequality to hold. Increasing the value of b just increases the number in each bracket.

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Like this post

viju9162: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 434; Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm; Location: Bangalore; Thanked: 6 times; GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:58 pm

amazing Stuart! really good explanation.. I didn't think so much while solving the problem..

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Viju

"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group

Like this post

nirmalp: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 6; Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:24 pm

by nirmalp » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm

The mathematical way to solve this one:

1. r/ (b+w) > w / (b+r)

Probability of choosing a red marble is r/ (b+w+r) and a white marbel is w/ (b+w+r)

We know r, b and w are all positive whole numbers. So we need not worry about -ve signs.

Transposing both sides from the given equation:
(b+r) / w > (b+w) / r

Adding 1 to both sides:
[(b+r)/ w] + 1 > [(b+w) / r] + 1

Take 1 inside the fractional part:
(b+ r+ w)/ w > (b + w + r) / r

Transposing back:
r / (b + w + r) > w / (b+ r+ w)

Hence the p(r) > p(w).

Answer: A.

Like this post

pkw209: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 266; Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:46 pm; Thanked: 8 times; GMAT Score:690

by pkw209 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:38 pm

Thanks, you guys are extremely helpful!

I think I'm more comfortable with the mathematical way.

nirmalp, why did you choose to transpose both sides from the given equation:
(b+r) / w > (b+w) / r

Also, can you please explain the steps below? Confused as to why you added the 1...

Adding 1 to both sides:
[(b+r)/ w] + 1 > [(b+w) / r] + 1

Take 1 inside the fractional part:
(b+ r+ w)/ w > (b + w + r) / r

Like this post

Testluv: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 1302; Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pmFollowed by: 164 members; Location: Toronto; Thanked: 539 times; GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:45 pm

...but, pkw209, the reasoning approach is quicker, and requires much less work!

1) r / (b + w) > w / (b + r)

In general, how can fraction a be bigger than fraction b? Either fraction a's numerator is larger than that of fraction b or else fraction a 's denominator is smaller than that of fraction b.

Here, the fraction on the left is bigger than the fraction on the right. How can this be? Simple: either the numerator on the left is bigger than the one on the right OR the denominator on the left is smaller than the one on the right.

Therefore:

if the left-hand side numerator is bigger, then:
r > w

and

if the left-hand side denominator is smaller, then:
b + w < b + r
w < r
r > w

In both cases, r > w.

Therefore, the first statement is sufficient by itself.

Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

Ian Stewart: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 2623; Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 amFollowed by: 355 members; Location: Montreal; Thanked: 1090 times; GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:25 am

I gave an alternative explanation to this problem in this thread:

www.beatthegmat.com/marbles-probability-t32705.html

For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com

Like this post

restero: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 4; Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:22 am

by restero » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:45 pm

Answer is A.

Simply,
Inverse the inequality, add one to both side and inverse the inequality again..
u get r/(b+r+w)>w/(b+r+w)

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

560 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review