BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

help

Expert replies

by lunarpower » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:20 am
to be perfectly balanced here, it's not totally fair to say there are two errors, since, technically, the 900 isn't wrong. (the 900 is incompatible with the 271, but only the 271 is actually erroneous.)

i'd be interested in seeing the answer key for this problem, though.
see, ok, i can totally get how someone would have made this mistake -- in fact, i misread the problem myself, as i do much too often (see above) -- but what i'm wondering is, "wouldn't the author notice the mistake while writing the answer key?"
i.e., if there's actually a key to this problem, the key will have to explain how to enumerate the 271 [sic] integers in question.... and then that explanation should explicitly mention the values between 000 and 099, thus tipping off readers (and, i would have thought, the author!) to the inherent contradiction.

does anyone have the answer key to this thing? it would be interesting to see how, exactly, the answer here is justified, and/or how much explanation is given for the 271.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:46 am
I'm guessing the OA is a blend of miscounting and overcounting. If you do this:

7xx = 9*9 ways
x7x = 9*9 ways
xx7 = 9*9 ways
7x7 = 9 ways
x77 = 9 ways
77x = 9 ways
777 = 1 way

you get 81*3 + 27 + 1 = 271. There are 900 three digit numbers, "hence" 271/900.
Join the discussion

by subhakam » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:34 pm
lunarpower wrote:macattack -- yeah, you're right here. nice work.

as usual, i misread the problem (yay! dyslexia is fun) as "three-digit code" instead of "three-digit number". so, in other words, i was thinking about 000-999 instead of 100-999.

so, yes, that works.

using the "opposite situation" method:
the chance of getting NO sevens is
(8/9)(9/10)(9/10)
= (8/10)(9/10)
= 72/100
= 18/25

so, the chance of getting at least one seven is 1 - 18/25 = 7/25.

--

you can also do this:
* 90 numbers with "7" in the units place (107, 117, ..., 997); 90 numbers with "7" in the tens place (170, 171, ..., 979), and 100 numbers with "7" in the hundreds place (700-799) ... so, 280.
BUT
* we've counted all the _77 numbers except 777 (eight of them) twice. there are eight of those, so subtract 8.
* we've counted all the 7_7 numbers except 777 (nine of them) twice. there are nine of those, so subtract 9.
* we've counted all the 77_ numbers except 777 (nine of them) twice. there are nine of those, so subtract 9.
so, right now, 254.
FINALLY
* we've counted 777 three times. so, subtract two of them (so that one still counts), leaving 252.

... but your way of counting seems to be more straightforward.
Hello Ron - can you please explain how you got this? Like a step by step if possible please?
"using the "opposite situation" method:
the chance of getting NO sevens is
(8/9)(9/10)(9/10)
= (8/10)(9/10)
= 72/100
= 18/25 "

Thanks
Subhakam
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:17 pm
The opposite situation says:

The first digit of a three-digit number can't be 0, but it could be any of the other 9 digits. We want something that isn't 7, so any of the other 8 digits is fine. Our odds of getting a non-7 for the first digit are thus 8/9.

For the second and third digits, there are 10 possible digits for each space. We want a non-7, so we'll take any of the other 9. Our odds are thus 9/10 each time.

Since we need a non-7 for each of the three digits, we need all three scenarios to be non-7. Thus we multiply the probabilities together:

8/9 * 9/10 * 9/10 = 18/25

Since these are the odds of getting NO 7's, the odds of getting at least one 7 are (1 - odds of no 7's) or (1 - 18/25) or 7/25.
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:21 am
^^^ yep. that.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion