I think the question should specify the constraints that you assume in the question. It should specify that the number of marketers and programmers is non-zero. For 23% of marketers to be pet owners, the number has to be 100 (assuming the above constraint is provided in the question).
I think saying that 20% of programmers and 23% of marketers that own pets in the question implies that the number of programmers can't be 0, since there's no way they'll have calculated 20% of 0 programmers
So since 23/100 of marketers can't be reduced, and when increased leave the number of programmers as 0 (i.e. 46/200), therefore the total number of marketers and 23 of them own pets, which leaves the number of programmers as 100 also.
9 місяців тому
200 marketers of which 115 are programmers is possible as well. That meets the question criteria and it gives 46 pets in total (23 belonging to those 115 people).
It can not be assumed that marketers are 100 as the case of 200 marketers and 0 programmers also works without having fraction of a person. The statement does not rule out that there has to be atleast one of each kind, hence the answer should be D
9 місяців тому+8
200 marketers of which 115 are programmers can be possible as well if one assume a person can be both. That meets the question criteria and it gives 46 pets in total (23 belonging to those 115 people). I think the key here is that it says "Either programmers or marketers" ("or" implies that there cannot be a person being both).
agree - it should say 'but not both' if that's what they mean. What about 120 programmers and 100 marketers with (20 being both) = 47 pets altogether, etc.
This is the trick part of this trick question. If numMarketers is unknown but we know that 23% of numMarketers is the number of marketers with pets, then .23*numMarketers has to be a whole number (a number of people, no partial people allowed). 23 % of 90 would be 20.7 marketers with pets, for example, but there is no such thing as .7 marketers (barring some sort of tragic workplace accident). But 23% of 100 is 23, so 🛎🛎🛎. And since 23 is prime, it is the only number that works out between 1 and 199. 23% of 200 is an int too, but that would mean 0 programmers. more of a riddle than a math problem imo.
How could you get the 100 each? I know it's true because I've checked with a coding script to check all the possible values that are not fractions but I need clearer info on how to achieve that 100 number using a manual calculation approach. Additionally, I know that it's not possible to use the Substitution Method or Elimination because if there are 3 variables (Programmer, Marketer, and Total of Programmer and Marketer who owned a pet(s)) we should have 3 equations. Please enlighten me.
People cannot be fractional, so 23/100 is the minimum fraction possible for marketers. Let's say the fraction is greater; we can always multiply fractions, like 1/5, 2/10, 3/15, but for 23/100, the nearest multiplication is 46/200. However, we know there are only 200 people, so that is incorrect. Therefore, the possible value of marketers is 23 out of 100
@@hasnainrizvi-p1l I see, I understand. We can be certain that 23% of total marketers won't yield another whole number except its own denominator is because one of the fractions enumerators (i.e. 23) is a prime number, right?
@@hasnainrizvi-p1l Basically this is a trick question xD They want you take things as literal as possible when in the real world the answer would ALWAYS be D. The ambiguity in this question makes me not want to bother with the standardized tests anymore lol
You can't just assume values cus in another case we could have 50 programmers and 150 marketers, make approximations to make sure we have an integer as our final answer (45 employees who own pets). Correct answer should be D.
I think there can be the possibility that all of them are either programmers or marketers given the language of the question..... I think D is correct. Can anyone comment on this plz?
I went through the question and typed out a proof about why D is correct only to realize this is a trick question. Because the percentage is 23% EXACTLY, the only way to be divided perfectly in 23% would be 100 due to the whole nature of a single human. Such a gross question, this isn't math this is English xD
I can manipulate this to go all ways. There’s no way to determine the exact number of programmers or marketers. So technically there’s not enough information to answer this. You could have 60 marketers and 140 programmers. 23% of 60 is 13.8 people and 20% of 140 is 28people the people who own pets is 41. You could say B is greater Or if you take 20% of 200 and 23% of 200 the ppl who own pets would be 86 so A would be greater.
Your logic isn’t correct. You can’t have a fraction of a person. Plus there’s marketers and programmers, so you can’t multiply both by the total number of people.
@@jordanboston-ng9vk the logic isn’t incorrect. Even if I left the fraction as is or rounded up, it still would be lower than B. the POINT is there’s not enough information to determine the correct number in each group. It’s definitely wrong to assume the company has the same number of employees in each area unless explicitly stated.
And you can’t round up. It has to be a round number because you can’t have a fraction of a person. Which is what you’re saying by assuming a 60/140 split.
(A) A is greater because if all are either programmers or marketers then it makes 43%of total employee means 86 employees own pets. Whereas in column B there are 43.
They can’t all be one or the other. The percentages tell you there’s at least some of both types of employees. And you don’t take the percentage of the whole. You take percentages of each of the types of employees separately.
Absolutely wrong. The correct answer is D. The question never said anything about either marketers being 100 or programmers being 100, you only assumed those values. Since the question doesn’t give this vital information we cannot come to a definite answer. If Programmers were to be 50 of the 200 employees and marketers 150, you would have a much different outcome.
I dont get it. If I solve this problem using algebra, I find the answer is B. Let's assume Programmer = P and Marketer = M P + M = 200 P = 200 - M Total Pets = 0.2P + 0.23M 0.2 (200 - M) + 0.23M 40 - 0.2M + 0.23M 40 - 0.03M So maximum of total pets is 39 (40 -1)
The question doesn't adequately explain the table and what they mean, so this question is trash to begin with. I thought was saying the number of employees who own pets was the value in column A and that column B was some other value that we had to figure out which group it belonged to. Bad example.
Wrong approach to solve the question. Because if you take equal number of programmers and marketers, then A and B will be equal. But if you take number of employees of programmers more than marketers then B will be greater and if you take number of employees of marketers more than programmers then the A will be greater. so the right ans should be D) Cannot be determined
bhai e kemon logic? 23 not div by 100 so must 100 jon marketer ase. Like emon ki kono rule e ase je percentage e prime number thakle emon kora jaite pare. piliz reply.
I still think D is the correct solution. The question does not state how many programmers as well as marketers there is.
I think the question should specify the constraints that you assume in the question. It should specify that the number of marketers and programmers is non-zero.
For 23% of marketers to be pet owners, the number has to be 100 (assuming the above constraint is provided in the question).
I think saying that 20% of programmers and 23% of marketers that own pets in the question implies that the number of programmers can't be 0, since there's no way they'll have calculated 20% of 0 programmers
So since 23/100 of marketers can't be reduced, and when increased leave the number of programmers as 0 (i.e. 46/200), therefore the total number of marketers and 23 of them own pets, which leaves the number of programmers as 100 also.
200 marketers of which 115 are programmers is possible as well. That meets the question criteria and it gives 46 pets in total (23 belonging to those 115 people).
How? Please explain
It can not be assumed that marketers are 100 as the case of 200 marketers and 0 programmers also works without having fraction of a person. The statement does not rule out that there has to be atleast one of each kind, hence the answer should be D
200 marketers of which 115 are programmers can be possible as well if one assume a person can be both. That meets the question criteria and it gives 46 pets in total (23 belonging to those 115 people).
I think the key here is that it says "Either programmers or marketers" ("or" implies that there cannot be a person being both).
agree - it should say 'but not both' if that's what they mean. What about 120 programmers and 100 marketers with (20 being both) = 47 pets altogether, etc.
How did you get to know that 100 are programmer's and 100 are marketers seems like it's an assumed value or the question is incomplete
was thinking the same thing
This is the trick part of this trick question. If numMarketers is unknown but we know that 23% of numMarketers is the number of marketers with pets, then .23*numMarketers has to be a whole number (a number of people, no partial people allowed). 23 % of 90 would be 20.7 marketers with pets, for example, but there is no such thing as .7 marketers (barring some sort of tragic workplace accident). But 23% of 100 is 23, so 🛎🛎🛎. And since 23 is prime, it is the only number that works out between 1 and 199. 23% of 200 is an int too, but that would mean 0 programmers. more of a riddle than a math problem imo.
@@KendallVance nice explanation mate, you explained even better than the video 😊
How could you get the 100 each? I know it's true because I've checked with a coding script to check all the possible values that are not fractions but I need clearer info on how to achieve that 100 number using a manual calculation approach. Additionally, I know that it's not possible to use the Substitution Method or Elimination because if there are 3 variables (Programmer, Marketer, and Total of Programmer and Marketer who owned a pet(s)) we should have 3 equations. Please enlighten me.
People cannot be fractional, so 23/100 is the minimum fraction possible for marketers. Let's say the fraction is greater; we can always multiply fractions, like 1/5, 2/10, 3/15, but for 23/100, the nearest multiplication is 46/200. However, we know there are only 200 people, so that is incorrect. Therefore, the possible value of marketers is 23 out of 100
@@hasnainrizvi-p1l I see, I understand. We can be certain that 23% of total marketers won't yield another whole number except its own denominator is because one of the fractions enumerators (i.e. 23) is a prime number, right?
@@hasnainrizvi-p1l Basically this is a trick question xD They want you take things as literal as possible when in the real world the answer would ALWAYS be D. The ambiguity in this question makes me not want to bother with the standardized tests anymore lol
how can u assume equal number of marketers and programmers??
damn.. option D is correct.
thats what i am thinking . considering 1marketer and 199 programers would make 46 approx and 50 , 50 makes 43 .
@@reddragon631720% of 199 gives a number with decimals and 23% of 1 too. You cannot have 0.23 employees.
@@reddragon6317huh?😂
@@reddragon6317 then it is not 23% of marketers
You can't just assume values cus in another case we could have 50 programmers and 150 marketers, make approximations to make sure we have an integer as our final answer (45 employees who own pets). Correct answer should be D.
I think there can be the possibility that all of them are either programmers or marketers given the language of the question..... I think D is correct.
Can anyone comment on this plz?
I went through the question and typed out a proof about why D is correct only to realize this is a trick question. Because the percentage is 23% EXACTLY, the only way to be divided perfectly in 23% would be 100 due to the whole nature of a single human. Such a gross question, this isn't math this is English xD
I can manipulate this to go all ways. There’s no way to determine the exact number of programmers or marketers. So technically there’s not enough information to answer this.
You could have 60 marketers and 140 programmers. 23% of 60 is 13.8 people and 20% of 140 is 28people the people who own pets is 41. You could say B is greater
Or if you take 20% of 200 and 23% of 200 the ppl who own pets would be 86 so A would be greater.
Your logic isn’t correct. You can’t have a fraction of a person. Plus there’s marketers and programmers, so you can’t multiply both by the total number of people.
@@jordanboston-ng9vk the logic isn’t incorrect. Even if I left the fraction as is or rounded up, it still would be lower than B. the POINT is there’s not enough information to determine the correct number in each group. It’s definitely wrong to assume the company has the same number of employees in each area unless explicitly stated.
@@itash22 they didn’t assume it.. did you watch the video explanation?
And you can’t round up. It has to be a round number because you can’t have a fraction of a person. Which is what you’re saying by assuming a 60/140 split.
(A) A is greater
because if all are either programmers or marketers then it makes 43%of total employee means 86 employees own pets. Whereas in column B there are 43.
They can’t all be one or the other. The percentages tell you there’s at least some of both types of employees. And you don’t take the percentage of the whole. You take percentages of each of the types of employees separately.
Option d make more sense.
great content 📚📚📚✍️✍️✍️
Thank you!
Absolutely wrong. The correct answer is D. The question never said anything about either marketers being 100 or programmers being 100, you only assumed those values.
Since the question doesn’t give this vital information we cannot come to a definite answer. If Programmers were to be 50 of the 200 employees and marketers 150, you would have a much different outcome.
I dont get it. If I solve this problem using algebra, I find the answer is B.
Let's assume Programmer = P and Marketer = M
P + M = 200
P = 200 - M
Total Pets = 0.2P + 0.23M
0.2 (200 - M) + 0.23M
40 - 0.2M + 0.23M
40 - 0.03M
So maximum of total pets is 39 (40 -1)
-0.2 + 0.23 is not -0.03
option D . how can you get this 'wrong. 199 programer and 1 marketer makes near 46 and 100 programers and marketers make 43 . so its arbitrary
You are implying that 0.23 of that 1 marketer has a pet which makes no sense
😂
The question doesn't adequately explain the table and what they mean, so this question is trash to begin with. I thought was saying the number of employees who own pets was the value in column A and that column B was some other value that we had to figure out which group it belonged to.
Bad example.
Wrong approach to solve the question. Because if you take equal number of programmers and marketers, then A and B will be equal. But if you take number of employees of programmers more than marketers then B will be greater and if you take number of employees of marketers more than programmers then the A will be greater. so the right ans should be D) Cannot be determined
Yeah u r correct
So I was thinking why he has taken equal numbers?
And if all of them are programmers?
That can’t be valid, the information provided states that both programmers and marketers are pet owners.
@@itash22 so make it 10 marketers, it doesn't change the point
@@SF11410 maybe you posted an incomplete thought. I don’t understand your point. If it’s because you think the answer is wrong. I agree.
That would give you a fraction of marketers that own pets.
Eita hard? 😂
bhai e kemon logic?
23 not div by 100 so must 100 jon marketer ase.
Like emon ki kono rule e ase je percentage e prime number thakle emon kora jaite pare.
piliz reply.