![]() |
| A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles |
| Re: GMATPrep - Practice Test 2 - Problem #7 |
|
givemeanid
Guest
|
The question asks whether r/(b+w+r) > w/(b+w+r) or in other words is r > w? 1. r(b+r) > w(b+w) br + r^2 > bw + w^2 br - bw > w^2 - r^2 b(r-w) > (w-r)(w+r) r-w > (w-r)(w+r)/b ----> We know b is positive. So, we can divide both sides without changing the inequality r-w > k(w-r) ----> Where k > 0 as b,r and w are all positive This is true only when r > w. If r < w, left side is -ve and right side is +ve and the inequality doesn't hold. SUFFICIENT. 2. b - w > r b > w + r This doesn't tell us anything about relationship between w and r. INSUFFICIENT. Answer is A. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| A different way |
|
Anadi
Guest
|
Suppose total is T , T=r+b+w
r/(b+w) > w/(b+r) r/(b+w+r-r) > w/(b+w+r-w) r/(t-r) > w/(t-w) Since t>r and t>w, we can cross multiply. rt-rw > wt-rw rt > wt Since t > 0 r > w So 1 is sufficient. 2 is obviously not sufficient. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Harish Dorai
Guest
|
You guys are brilliant! The explanation makes perfect sense and the answer is (A).
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
givemeanid
Guest
|
Anadi, I like your solution. Good thinking.
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Stacey Koprince
MGMAT STAFF
|
You guys are all doing a great job here - you don't even need me! :)
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Re: A different way |
|
cracker
Guest
|
adding +ve no r to lhs and w to rhs
proper frac behave properly therefore we have 2r/(b+r+w) > 2 w/(b +r+w) divinding by +ve no 2 r/(b+r+w)[prob of red bll] > w/(b +r+w)[prob of white ball] 2 in insuffincent hence ,A |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| A different way |
|
k0nc3pt10n
Guest
|
I like Anadi's method better than mine, but...
1) r/(b+w) > w/(b+r) 2)r/(b+w) + (b+w)/(b+w) > w/(b+r) + (b+r)/(b+r) ---> I added 1 to both sides inthe form of (b+w)/(b+w) & (b+r)/(b+r) 3)(r+b+w)/(b+w) > (r+b+w)/(b+r) ---> Next I cross multiply 4)(b+r)(r+b+w) > (r+b+w)(b+w) ---> divide out the (r+b+w) 5)(b+r) > (b+w) ---> It's pretty obvious now, but you can take away the b's if you want 6)r>w Also I don't agree with crackers' math. Can anyone explain it better? |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guest
|
A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles, "w" white marbles and "r" red marbles. If one marble is to be chosen at random from the jar, is the probability that the marble chosen is red greater than the probability that the marble chosen will be white?
P(red)=r/(b+w+r) P(white)=w/(b+w+r) P(red) > P (White) if r > w 1) r/(b+w) > w/(b+r) gives r/(b+w+r) > w/(b+w+r) [ this follows from: if A/B > C/D then A/(A+B) > C/(C+D) ] hence r > w Sufficient 2) b - w > r Not Sufficient I believe this also helps to explain cracker's method |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles |
|
||
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Content © Manhattan GMAT Forums
*GMAT and GMAT CAT are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council,
which neither sponsors nor endorses this test preparation service.
Content © Manhattan GMAT Forums
*GMAT and GMAT CAT are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council,
which neither sponsors nor endorses this test preparation service.


