Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

Leapzine - Probability

Expert replies
by suchoudh » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:58 pm
What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a better-than-50% chance that at least one of them was born in a leap year?
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5

OA 3
Join the discussion
Source: — Problem Solving |

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:12 pm
suchoudh wrote:What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a better-than-50% chance that at least one of them was born in a leap year?
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5

OA 3
A greater than 50% chance that at least one was born in a leap year is the same as a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year.

So, we can reword the question as, What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year?"

Assuming that 3/4 is the probability that one is NOT born in a leap year, we can see that:
1 person: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 = 0.75 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
2 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 = 9/16 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
3 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 = 27/64 (this is less than 0.5)

The answer is 3
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Join the discussion

by suchoudh » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:36 pm
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Join the discussion

by sreak1089 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:28 pm
Why do we need to assume that the probability that a person is NOT born in a leap year is 3/4?

Is it because 1/4 is the probability that a person is born in a leap year is 1/4?

Brent Hanneson wrote:
suchoudh wrote:What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a better-than-50% chance that at least one of them was born in a leap year?
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5

OA 3
A greater than 50% chance that at least one was born in a leap year is the same as a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year.

So, we can reword the question as, What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year?"

Assuming that 3/4 is the probability that one is NOT born in a leap year, we can see that:
1 person: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 = 0.75 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
2 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 = 9/16 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
3 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 = 27/64 (this is less than 0.5)

The answer is 3
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:03 pm
sreak1089 wrote:Why do we need to assume that the probability that a person is NOT born in a leap year is 3/4?

Is it because 1/4 is the probability that a person is born in a leap year is 1/4?

Brent Hanneson wrote:
suchoudh wrote:What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a better-than-50% chance that at least one of them was born in a leap year?
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5

OA 3
A greater than 50% chance that at least one was born in a leap year is the same as a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year.

So, we can reword the question as, What is the minimum number of randomly chosen people needed in order to have a less than 50% chance that none of them was born in a leap year?"

Assuming that 3/4 is the probability that one is NOT born in a leap year, we can see that:
1 person: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 = 0.75 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
2 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 = 9/16 (nope, we want less than 0.5)
3 people: P(none born in a leap year) = 3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 = 27/64 (this is less than 0.5)

The answer is 3
If you assume that the chance of being born on any particular day is that same as all other days, then 1 out of every 4 years is a leap year, so (ingoring the extra day which shifts the probabilities a tiny bit) there's a 1/4 chance of being born in a leap year and a 3/4 chance of being born in other years.
Image

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
Join the discussion

by sreak1089 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:04 pm
I understand now. Thank you Stuart.
Join the discussion