Probability 3 persons seated

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Italy
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

Probability 3 persons seated

by mjjking » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:11 am
3 persons (1 couple and 1 single) are seated at random in a raw of 5 chairs. What is the probability that the couple DOES NOT sit together?

5/7
4/5
2/5
3/5
11/18

any help is welcome!
Beat The GMAT - 1st priority
Enter a top MBA program - 2nd priority
Loving my wife: MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL!

REAL THING 1 (AUG 2007): 680 (Q43, V40)
REAL THING 2 (APR 2009): 720 (Q47, V41)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:40 am
Thanked: 1 times

by NethraN » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:27 am
IMO

Total Number of ways the 3 people can be seated on 5 chairs is 5C3 = 10

The number of ways they can be seated with the couple sitting together is 4C2

The probability that the couple will SIT TOGETHER is 4C2/5C3 = 6/10

so the probability that the couple DOES NOT SIT TOGETHER should be
1-6/10 = 4/10 => 2/5

Please correct me if am wrong.
Nethra

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

by avenus » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:14 am
I think you have to take order into account, since, for instance, if the three people sit on chairs 1, 4 and 5, you'll have different cases depending on where the loner sits.
Number of ways in which the 3 people can be seated:

5*4*3 = 60

Number of ways in which the couple will be seated together:

4*3*2 = 24

If A and B are the members of the couple and S the other chairs:
A B S S S
S A B S S
S S A B S
S S S A B
B A S S S
etc...
We have 8 of those, and for every one of them the loner can be seated on 1 of the three different chairs left, and therefore we need to multiply by 3...
The probability that the couple sits together is then 24/60 = 2/5

and the probability that the couple DOES NOT sit together: 3/5

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:40 am
Thanked: 1 times

by NethraN » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:23 am
Thanks avenus that makes more sense.
Nethra