VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
shasadou wrote:
On a fishing expedition, a group of 13 fishermen caught a total of 160 fish. \ Did any one fisherman catch more than 15 fish?
(1) The fisherman who caught the third-most fish caught 11 fish.
(2) The fisherman who caught the second-most fish caught 12 fish
There were 13 fishermen and a total of 160 fish. One thing that immediately comes to mind is that many fishermen could have easily caught no fish. So it is certainly possible with either statement that the fisherman who caught maximum number of fish caught, say 100 fish. So more than 15 is certainly possible. What we now need to figure out is whether 15 or less for the fisherman who caught the most is also possible.
(1) The fisherman who caught the third-most fish caught 11 fish.
We need to find the case in which the fisherman with most fish caught 15 or less. So other fishermen need to catch as many as they can.
Arranging in ascending order of number of fish caught: 10, 10, 10, .... 10, 11, 14, 15
This adds up to only 140 fish. So the fisherman with most fish MUST HAVE caught more than 15 fish.
Sufficient.
(2) The fisherman who caught the second-most fish caught 12 fish.
Again, we need to find the case in which the fisherman with most fish caught 15 or less. So other fishermen need to catch as many as they can.
Arranging in ascending order of number of fish caught: 11, 11, 11, .... 11, 11, 12, 15
This adds up to only 148 fish. So the fisherman with most fish MUST HAVE caught more than 15 fish.
Sufficient.
Answer (D)
For statement 1. The fisherman who caught the third-most fish caught 11 fish
Instead of 10, 10, 10, .... 10, 11, 14, 15
can it be 11,11,11, ... 11,11,14,15 , here there are 11 fishermen who caught 3rd-most highest fish
still it is less than 160 , but is it the better way?
thanks