|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 897
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Careful!
Attachments
PS3.JPG [ 22.35 KiB | Viewed 377 times ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
My answer is 6:
If the people are assigned the numbers 1-6 (where 1 is the lowest height and 6 is the greatest)
The positions of 1 and 6 can't be moved...
a b 6
1 c d
2,3,4 and 5 have to be fit into positions a,b,c and d
If a=2, there are 3 possibilities of b: 3,4,5...for each of these possibilities the remaining two numbers can only be placed in 1 order in c & d (as they have to be ascending)
If a=3, there are two possibilities of b:4,5...for each, the remaining two numbers can only be placed in 1 order is c&d
If a=4, there is only one possibility of b:5...and c&d can only be placed in 1 way
a can't be 5 (as there is no person to fit into position b)
Thus total number of ways to arrange = 3+2+1=6
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
i got 5. suppose the heights of the people are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
123
456
124
356
125
346
134
256
135
246
did i miss anything??????????????????????????????????????????????? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 553
Location: Canuckland
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
5
I am a bit sleepy but here is my reasoning
I I Tallest
shortest I I
Shortest and tallest fellows have to stand on the opposite sides of different rows.
now we have 4 left we can pick any 2 for 2 positions in the first row 4C2 = 6
however 4th 5th tallest guys cannot be in the first row together so 6-1 = 5
ordering should not matter because there is only 1 way to put ppl in increasing order according to their heights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 95
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
fun question.
key was to establish that 1 and 6 must remain in fixed positions. Then the problem becomes managable.
took me a while to realize that though.
I got 5 as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 95
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
cloudz9 wrote: HIMALAYA wrote: i got 5. suppose the heights of the people are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 123 456 124 356 125 346 134 256 135 246 did i miss anything??????????????????????????????????????????????? what about 145 236 and third position for that matter. First row cannot be smaller then second row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
cloudz9 wrote: HIMALAYA wrote: i got 5. suppose the heights of the people are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 123 456 124 356 125 346 134 256 135 246 did i miss anything??????????????????????????????????????????????? what about 145 236 Oh, i was out of internet for some days, because i was in vacation..., so i couldnot reply on time. anyway it is already explained..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
