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).

@joeben5270

4 ай бұрын

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

@joeben5270

4 ай бұрын

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.

4 ай бұрын

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).

@obasimatictutorial

22 күн бұрын

How? Please explain

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

@chicosalinas7662

13 күн бұрын

was thinking the same thing

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.

@user-gq7jh7xp4y

4 ай бұрын

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

@fadilahnurimani5664

4 ай бұрын

​@@user-gq7jh7xp4y 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?

@seankeegan8285

3 ай бұрын

@@user-gq7jh7xp4y 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??

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?

@seankeegan8285

3 ай бұрын

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

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).

great content 📚📚📚✍️✍️✍️

@MagooshGRE

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

damn.. option D is correct.

@reddragon6317

4 ай бұрын

thats what i am thinking . considering 1marketer and 199 programers would make 46 approx and 50 , 50 makes 43 .

4 ай бұрын

@@reddragon631720% of 199 gives a number with decimals and 23% of 1 too. You cannot have 0.23 employees.

@nichithcn7119

Ай бұрын

​@@reddragon6317huh?😂

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

4 ай бұрын

You are implying that 0.23 of that 1 marketer has a pet which makes no sense

@nichithcn7119

Ай бұрын

😂

(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.

@jordanboston-ng9vk

4 ай бұрын

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.

@reddragon6317

4 ай бұрын

Option d make more sense.

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.

@jordanboston-ng9vk

4 ай бұрын

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.

@itash22

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

@jordanboston-ng9vk

4 ай бұрын

@@itash22 they didn’t assume it.. did you watch the video explanation?

@jordanboston-ng9vk

4 ай бұрын

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.

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)

And if all of them are programmers?

@itash22

4 ай бұрын

That can’t be valid, the information provided states that both programmers and marketers are pet owners.

@user-lj1gy6ef5t

4 ай бұрын

@@itash22 so make it 10 marketers, it doesn't change the point

@itash22

4 ай бұрын

@@user-lj1gy6ef5t maybe you posted an incomplete thought. I don’t understand your point. If it’s because you think the answer is wrong. I agree.

@jordanboston-ng9vk

4 ай бұрын

That would give you a fraction of marketers that own pets.

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.

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

@rohitbhatt1815

17 күн бұрын

Yeah u r correct So I was thinking why he has taken equal numbers?

Eita hard? 😂

@safirurrashid6562

4 ай бұрын

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.