what is the probability of getting at least one head when a fair coin is flipped twice ?

i know how to calculate this (ans=3/4) but what is CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM in following solution

P = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)

= 1/2*1

P = 1/2

## Probability - conceptual problem

##### This topic has expert replies

- vikram4689
- Legendary Member
**Posts:**1325**Joined:**01 Nov 2009**Thanked**: 105 times**Followed by:**14 members

Premise: If you like my post

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

### GMAT/MBA Expert

- [email protected]
- GMAT Instructor
**Posts:**15628**Joined:**08 Dec 2008**Location:**Vancouver, BC**Thanked**: 5254 times**Followed by:**1266 members**GMAT Score:**770

Your solution assumes that the first toss will be heads. This need not be the case in order to get at least one head.vikram4689 wrote:what is the probability of getting at least one head in a 2 times toss of coin.

i know how to calculate this but what is CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM in following solution

P = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)

= 1/2*1

P = 1/2

When it comes to probability questions involving "at least," it's best to try using the complement.

That is, P(Event A happening) = 1 - P(Event A not happening)

So, here we get: P(getting at least 1 head) = 1 - P(not getting at least 1 head)

What does it mean to not get at least 1 head? It means getting zero heads.

So, we can write: P(getting at least 1 head) = 1 - P(getting zero heads)

Now let's calculate P(getting zero heads)

What needs to happen in order to get zero heads?

Well, we need tails on the first toss and tails on the second toss.

We can write P(getting zero heads) = P(tails on 1st AND tails on 2nd)

This means that P(getting zero heads) = P(tails on 1st) x P(tails on 2nd)

Which means P(getting zero heads) = (1/2)x(1/2) = 1/4

We're now ready to answer the question.

P(getting at least 1 head) = 1 - P(not getting at least 1 head)

= 1 - 1/4

= 3/4

Cheers,

Brent

### GMAT/MBA Expert

- [email protected]
- GMAT Instructor
**Posts:**15628**Joined:**08 Dec 2008**Location:**Vancouver, BC**Thanked**: 5254 times**Followed by:**1266 members**GMAT Score:**770

- heads on 1st and heads on 2nd

- heads on 1st and tails on 2nd

- tails on 1st and heads on 2nd

- tails on 1st and tails on 2nd

**Important: Please note that these 4 outcomes are equally likely to occur.**

Out of the 4 possible (and equally likely) outcomes, 3 of them have at least one heads.

So, P(at least one heads) = 3/4

Cheers,

Brent

- vikram4689
- Legendary Member
**Posts:**1325**Joined:**01 Nov 2009**Thanked**: 105 times**Followed by:**14 members

brent,

i am aware of both of these solutions and concur with you on their correctness. however, i am not able to reason out the logical fallacy in the solution i posted

also i don't understand how did i assume that first toss will be head. simple example to check this. probability of head on single toss of coin => P(head)=1/2, if i did assume that head is the only possible then i would write P(head)=1

i am aware of both of these solutions and concur with you on their correctness. however, i am not able to reason out the logical fallacy in the solution i posted

also i don't understand how did i assume that first toss will be head. simple example to check this. probability of head on single toss of coin => P(head)=1/2, if i did assume that head is the only possible then i would write P(head)=1

Your solution assumes that the first toss will be heads. This need not be the case in order to get at least one head.

Premise: If you like my post

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

### GMAT/MBA Expert

- [email protected]
- GMAT Instructor
**Posts:**15628**Joined:**08 Dec 2008**Location:**Vancouver, BC**Thanked**: 5254 times**Followed by:**1266 members**GMAT Score:**770

**P = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)**

Why do you feel that P(at least one head) = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)?

I guess if we can better understand your rationale for this equation, we can get to the heart of the conceptual problem.

Cheers,

Brent

- vikram4689
- Legendary Member
**Posts:**1325**Joined:**01 Nov 2009**Thanked**: 105 times**Followed by:**14 members

sure,[email protected] wrote:I guess it's unclear to me what you meant byP = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)

Why do you feel that P(at least one head) = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)?

I guess if we can better understand your rationale for this equation, we can get to the heart of the conceptual problem.

Cheers,

Brent

since question asks for a least one head, solution says i need one head and i do not care what 2nd outcome is. also both of these have to happen for the event to be complete, we AND individual probabilities

p(head)=1/2

p(anything head or tail)= p(head)+(tail)-p(head and tail)= 1/2+1/2-0=1

hence,p = p(Head)*p(Anything head or tail)=1/2*1=1/2

please let me know if my explanation is not clear

Premise: If you like my post

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

- eagleeye
- Legendary Member
**Posts:**520**Joined:**28 Apr 2012**Thanked**: 339 times**Followed by:**49 members**GMAT Score:**770

Hi vikram4689:vikram4689 wrote:sure,[email protected] wrote:I guess it's unclear to me what you meant byP = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)

Why do you feel that P(at least one head) = P(Head)*P(Anything head or tail)?

I guess if we can better understand your rationale for this equation, we can get to the heart of the conceptual problem.

Cheers,

Brent

since question asks for a least one head, solution says i need one head and i do not care what 2nd outcome is. also both of these have to happen for the event to be complete, we AND individual probabilities

p(head)=1/2

p(anything head or tail)= p(head)+(tail)-p(head and tail)= 1/2+1/2-0=1

hence,p = p(Head)*p(Anything head or tail)=1/2*1=1/2

please let me know if my explanation is not clear

I see the fallacy in your argument. The problem is not completely with the thought process but with the application.

First: When you are calculating probability in : P = (p head)* p(tail) etc., you are inadvertently and inherently considering the order of the outcomes. That's just the way it is.

So, when you say that you have P(head) = P(head)*P(head or tail) which you correctly calculated as 1/2*1 = 1/2 , you are only considering the cases when there is HH and HT.

A quick fix would be considering the other possibility when you have P(head or tail)*P(head). In that case, your probability would be 1/2 (from the first case) + 1/2 (from the 2nd case) and equal 1. You know intuitively that this is wrong.

Here's the other problem:

If you did it this way, you have counted the HH case twice, if you were to remove it from here, you would get the desired result. P(HH) = 1/2*1/2 = 1/4.

Hence required probability = (Head first) + (Head Second) - (Both heads) = 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/4.

Also, let's translate what you calculated back to words:

When you said P(required) = P(head)*P(anything), you are answering the following question:

If a fair coin is tossed twice, what is the probability that it always lands heads on the first turn?

Let me know if the fallacy is clear.

Someone else had a similar problem, and I posted an explanation here regarding what are we really calculating when we say P(required) = P(A) * P(B) etc :

https://www.beatthegmat.com/red-and-whit ... tml#490788

Let me know if this helps

### GMAT/MBA Expert

- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
**Posts:**3380**Joined:**03 Mar 2008**Thanked**: 2256 times**Followed by:**1527 members**GMAT Score:**800

whoa, there are, um, a lot of words in this thread.

vikram, the basic issue with your approach is this:

so, when you write "prob(head) x prob(anything)", you are writing an expression for the probability that the

because order always matters when you multiply probabilities, it's rather annoying to get your approach to work here. specifically, you'd have to do the following:

(prob(head) x prob(anything)) + (prob(anything) x prob(head)) + (prob(head) x prob(head))

this is your standard probability calculation for either of two events. in this case, it's prob(heads on first coin) + prob(heads on second coin) - prob(both).

this works out to 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/4 = 3/4, as required.

vikram, the basic issue with your approach is this:

**when you multiply the probabilities of consecutive events, that multiplication implies that ORDER MATTERS**.so, when you write "prob(head) x prob(anything)", you are writing an expression for the probability that the

*first*toss is heads. unsurprisingly, that probability works out to 1/2.because order always matters when you multiply probabilities, it's rather annoying to get your approach to work here. specifically, you'd have to do the following:

(prob(head) x prob(anything)) + (prob(anything) x prob(head)) + (prob(head) x prob(head))

this is your standard probability calculation for either of two events. in this case, it's prob(heads on first coin) + prob(heads on second coin) - prob(both).

this works out to 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/4 = 3/4, as required.

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 Ã Ron en franÃ§ais

Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano

Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano

On peut poser des questions Ã Ron en franÃ§ais

Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

*Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.*Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron