## A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles

Math questions from mba.com and GMAT Prep software
Harish Dorai

### A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles

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?

1) r/(b+w) > w/(b+r)

2) b - w > r
givemeanid

### Re: GMATPrep - Practice Test 2 - Problem #7

Harish Dorai wrote: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?

1) r/(b+w) > w/(b+r)

2) b - w > r

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.

### A different way

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

You guys are brilliant! The explanation makes perfect sense and the answer is (A).
givemeanid

StaceyKoprince
ManhattanGMAT Staff

Posts: 8854
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:05 am
Location: San Francisco

You guys are all doing a great job here - you don't even need me! :)
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director of Online Community
ManhattanGMAT
cracker

### Re: A different way

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
k0nc3pt10n

### A different way

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
MBA Action

Ok, I have another approach

Can we say "safely" that since the total is fixed then
if: r/(rest(r)) > w/(rest(w)) as given in statement 1 then definitely r>w?
(rest(r) means rest of the marbles without r)
RonPurewal
Students

Posts: 19747
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am

### Re:

MBA Action wrote:Ok, I have another approach

Can we say "safely" that since the total is fixed then
if: r/(rest(r)) > w/(rest(w)) as given in statement 1 then definitely r>w?
(rest(r) means rest of the marbles without r)

yes, you can.

if you have a fixed total, then, as the quantity of something increases, the quantity of everything else will decrease accordingly. therefore, the higher the quantity of the "something", the higher the ratio of that "something" to "everything else" will be.

nice observation.
pddtruong
Forum Guests

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:42 am

### Re: A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles

1)
a) r(b+r) > w(b+w)
b) r(b+r) + rw > w (b+w) + rw [Add same number to both sides]
c) r[(b+r)+w] > w[(b+w)+ r] [factor out]
d) divide both sides: r/(b+w+r) > w/(b+w+r). Sufficient.

2) Ins.
ishkaran
Students

Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:47 am

### Re: A different way

k0nc3pt10n wrote: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?

Found this approach the best. Thanks
RonPurewal
Students

Posts: 19747
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am

### Re: A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles

good stuff
sudeepkapoor
Students

Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:48 pm

### Re: A certain jar contains only "b" black marbles

Taking statement (1)

r/(b+w) > w/(b+r) :

taking reciprocal ,

(b+w)/r < (b+r)/w

[take the example of 1/2 and 1/3 ; 1/2 > 1/3 but if one takes the reciprocal , 2<3 ]

now, add 1 to both sides,
(b+w)/r +1 < (b+r)/w +1 [inequality holds good when a positive constant is added]

This implies , (b+w+r)/r < (b+r+w)/w

Again take the reciprocal and the sign changes

r/(b+w+r) > w/(b+r+w)

also we know that :

P(red)=r/(b+w+r)
P(white)=w/(b+w+r)

therefore P(red) > P(white)

Therefore statement 1 is sufficient

Statement (2) does not give any relation between red and white marbles and is obviously not sufficient ;