Jul 20 07:00 AM PDT  09:00 AM PDT Attend this webinar and master GMAT SC in 10 days by learning how meaning and logic can help you tackle 700+ level SC questions with ease. Jul 21 07:00 AM PDT  09:00 AM PDT Attend this webinar to learn a structured approach to solve 700+ Number Properties question in less than 2 minutes Jul 26 08:00 AM PDT  09:00 AM PDT The Competition Continues  Game of Timers is a teambased competition based on solving GMAT questions to win epic prizes! Starting July 1st, compete to win prep materials while studying for GMAT! Registration is Open! Ends July 26th
Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 755
Location: London

A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 11:19
Question Stats:
53% (02:47) correct 47% (02:44) wrong based on 107 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg}. This set is good enough to weight any object having an integral weight betweem 1Kg and 63Kg (Eg. 19Kg = 16Kg + 2Kg + 1Kg). If the 4Kg weight is lost, how many weights between 1Kg & 63Kg can no longer be measured ? A) 16 B) 24 C) 28 D) 32 E) 36
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.
_________________




Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56300

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 11:54
shrouded1 wrote: Here is an interesting question :
A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg}. This set is good enough to weight any object having an integral weight betweem 1Kg and 63Kg (Eg. 19Kg = 16Kg + 2Kg + 1Kg). If the 4Kg weight is lost, how many weights between 1Kg & 63Kg can no longer be measured ?
A) 16 B) 24 C) 28 D) 32 E) 36 Consider the following example: how many different selections are possible from \(n\) people (including a subset with 0 members and a subset with all \(n\) members)? \(C^0_n+C^1_n+C^2_n+...+C^n_n=2^n\) > so, number of different subsets from a set with \(n\) different terms is \(2^n\) (this include one empty subset). Or another way: each person has 2 choices, either to be included or not to be included in the subset, so # of total subsets is \(2^n\). Next, from a set {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg} obviously no term can be obtained by adding any number of other terms. So, from a set with 6 different terms {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg} we can form \(2^61=63\) subsets each of which will have different sum (minus one empty subset) > we can weight 63 different weights; From a set with 5 different terms {1Kg, 2Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg} we can form \(2^51=31\) subsets each of which will have different sum (minus one empty subset) > we can weight 31 different weights; Which means that if 4Kg weight is lost 6331=32 weights can no longer be measured. Answer: D.
_________________




Retired Moderator
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 755
Location: London

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 12:02
Good solution, alluding to a binary notation of a number. Here is another way to think of the problem : We can form : 1 {1} 2 {2} 3 {1,2} But we cannot form any of 4 through to 7 without a 4. So 4 numbers we cannot form up till 7 Next look at the next set of numbers from 8 to 15 Notice that this is set is nothing but : 8+{0,1,2,3,..,7} But we know from this that we cannot form a 4,5,6,7 So if we count up till 15, there are 2x4=8 numbers in all that we cannot form Next look at the numbers from 16 to 31 Same patter repeats This is 16+{0,1,2,...,15} And we know from 0,..,15 there are 8 numbers we cannot form. So from 16 to 31 there are 8 more ... hence 2x8=16 numbers between 1 and 31 and this patter goes on ... For numbers upto 63, it will be 2x16=32 Answer is (d)
_________________



Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 315

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 12:37
Both the solution mentioned above are good, Is there any quicker way to deal with this.
_________________
GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl)  Be Serious
Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...



Retired Moderator
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 755
Location: London

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 17:37
There is one more way to do this, but that involves knowledge of a binary notation of a number (a concept not tested on the GMAT). Here is the solution : In binary a number <=63 can be represented in 6 digits. Of this 4 represents the 3rd digit from the right. The number of 6 digit binary numbers possible forcing the 3rd digit to be 1 (all the numbers that need 4) is exactly 2^5 or 32
_________________



Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 274
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 20:19
shrouded1 wrote: Good solution, alluding to a binary notation of a number.
Here is another way to think of the problem :
We can form : 1 {1} 2 {2} 3 {1,2} But we cannot form any of 4 through to 7 without a 4. So 4 numbers we cannot form up till 7
Next look at the next set of numbers from 8 to 15 Notice that this is set is nothing but : 8+{0,1,2,3,..,7} But we know from this that we cannot form a 4,5,6,7 So if we count up till 15, there are 2x4=8 numbers in all that we cannot form
Next look at the numbers from 16 to 31 Same patter repeats This is 16+{0,1,2,...,15} And we know from 0,..,15 there are 8 numbers we cannot form. So from 16 to 31 there are 8 more ... hence 2x8=16 numbers between 1 and 31
and this patter goes on ...
For numbers upto 63, it will be 2x16=32
Answer is (d) I was doing it this way ... however, lost trach somewhere in the middle. Realize that rather than doing all the way from 1  63 in one go, it is better to take it in batches. Thanks.
_________________
All things are possible to those who believe.



Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 274
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Oct 2010, 20:20
onedayill wrote: Both the solution mentioned above are good,
Is there any quicker way to deal with this. Bunuel's method is faster, but needs slightly more undertstanding.
_________________
All things are possible to those who believe.



Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 415
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23

Re: Missing Weights
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Dec 2012, 22:31
shrouded1 wrote: Here is an interesting question :
A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg, 32Kg}. This set is good enough to weight any object having an integral weight betweem 1Kg and 63Kg (Eg. 19Kg = 16Kg + 2Kg + 1Kg). If the 4Kg weight is lost, how many weights between 1Kg & 63Kg can no longer be measured ?
A) 16 B) 24 C) 28 D) 32 E) 36 Originally there could be \(2*2*2*2*2*2=2^6=64\) combinations of weight. Now that we took 1 weight off, we get \(2*2*2*2*2=2^5=32\) combinations of weight. What is lost? \(6432=32\) Answer: D In case you are wondering why 2 was multiplied n times, it's because 2 represents two things: BEING SELECTED and NOT BEING SELECTED.
_________________
Impossible is nothing to God.



Current Student
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 186
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Healthcare
GPA: 3.5

Re: A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 May 2016, 10:00
Here's how I thought about it: For each weight, there are two possibilities; either it's included or it's not. So, for 6 weights, there are (2*2*2*2*2*2) = 2^6 possibilities, minus 1 (the case where there are no weights) or 63 possibilities. Therefore, if we take away one of the weights, there are now 2^5  1 = 31 possibilities. 6331 = 32.
Answer: D
Aside: Think about it similiarly to how you think about counting the total number of factors from a number's prime factorization: Either the factor is included or it's not.



Current Student
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 81

Re: A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 May 2016, 10:16
the first thought i had was 5c0 +5c1 + 5c2 + 5c3 +5c4 +5c5 = 32. This is because i need to choose a 4 and that can be selected in the following combinations. with each one. on solving it gives me 32. 32 sets will be lost. Hope this helps



NonHuman User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 11709

Re: A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jun 2019, 10:16
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot! Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up  doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos). Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________




Re: A scientist has a set of weights {1Kg, 2Kg, 4Kg, 8Kg, 16Kg,
[#permalink]
22 Jun 2019, 10:16






