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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

DS: Probability

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:06 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 17 times
by ikaplan » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:42 am
There are 300 people in a conference hall. Each person is either an engineer or a professor or both or only a journalist. What is the probability that a person randomly picked from the hall is a journalist?

(1) There are 200 people who are an engineer or a professor
(2) There are 200 people who are exclusively an engineer or a professor

OA is A

My reasoning:
Statement (1) states that E + P + EP= 200
Based on this, the probability of being a journalist can be calculated; so, statement (1) is sufficient

However, statement (2) says that E + P=200

My question:
Is this a typical GMAT question because, according to my reasoning, the statements collide.
"Commitment is more than just wishing for the right conditions. Commitment is working with what you have."
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Data Sufficiency |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:25 pmFollowed by: 4 members
Thanked: 57 times

by akhilsuhag » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:00 pm
I haven't worked on the question. But on your other query, statements can't collide on the GMAT. Statements have to be true and compliment each other.
Please press "thanks" if you think my post has helped you.. Cheers!!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:25 pmFollowed by: 4 members
Thanked: 57 times

by akhilsuhag » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:02 pm
But in this case obviously A is sufficient.

Further, both statements together are giving that EP is 0.

They are not necessarily colliding!!
Please press "thanks" if you think my post has helped you.. Cheers!!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:50 pmFollowed by: 2 members
Location: Arlington, MA.
Thanked: 27 times

by winniethepooh » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:02 pm
ikaplan wrote:There are 300 people in a conference hall. Each person is either an engineer or a professor or both or only a journalist. What is the probability that a person randomly picked from the hall is a journalist?

(1) There are 200 people who are an engineer or a professor
(2) There are 200 people who are exclusively an engineer or a professor

OA is A

My reasoning:
Statement (1) states that E + P + EP= 200
Based on this, the probability of being a journalist can be calculated; so, statement (1) is sufficient

However, statement (2) says that E + P=200

My question:
Is this a typical GMAT question because, according to my reasoning, the statements collide.
Hi, what's the source?
Is there any explanation given with the OA, is yes please post!
thanks.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:06 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 17 times

by ikaplan » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:24 pm
Source: NOVA's DS Prep Course, p.90

The explanation was in line with my reasoning.

akhilsuhag is right: I didn't consider that EP can be 0. In that case, both statements are true and compliment each other.
"Commitment is more than just wishing for the right conditions. Commitment is working with what you have."
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 4 times

by mankey » Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:00 am
Some expert please respond on this one.

Thanks
Mankey
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1