Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 05:56 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 05:56
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
financebro28
Joined: 30 Nov 2024
Last visit: 06 May 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
14
 [14]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 5
Kudos: 14
 [14]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
13
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
gmatophobia
User avatar
Quant Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Last visit: 19 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,173
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,862
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
Posts: 3,173
Kudos: 11,454
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
SIndo12
Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Last visit: 17 Dec 2025
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 23
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Krunaal
User avatar
Tuck School Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2021
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 853
Own Kudos:
912
 [2]
Given Kudos: 251
Status:Under the Square and Compass
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82
GPA: 5.78
WE:Marketing (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82
Posts: 853
Kudos: 912
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SIndo12
What would be wrong with my approach as 4C2? Pls help


The correct approach includes dividing by 2! => \(4C2 * 2C2 * \frac{1}{2!}\)

We divide by 2! (the factorial of the number of pairs) because the order of the teams does not matter. For example, if the 4 people are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, the team-selection (1,2); (3,4) would be considered the same as (3,4); (1,2), as there is no specific order assigned to the teams.


You can practice similar questions here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/distributing ... 56656.html
User avatar
kanikaa9
Joined: 19 Aug 2023
Last visit: 02 Jul 2025
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 708
Location: India
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 90
Kudos: 55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Krunaal when we use 'combinations', we do so when order doesn't matter, then why are we dividing the result by 2!?

Krunaal
SIndo12
What would be wrong with my approach as 4C2? Pls help


The correct approach includes dividing by 2! => \(4C2 * 2C2 * \frac{1}{2!}\)

We divide by 2! (the factorial of the number of pairs) because the order of the teams does not matter. For example, if the 4 people are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, the team-selection (1,2); (3,4) would be considered the same as (3,4); (1,2), as there is no specific order assigned to the teams.


You can practice similar questions here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/distributing ... 56656.html
User avatar
Krunaal
User avatar
Tuck School Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2021
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 853
Own Kudos:
912
 [2]
Given Kudos: 251
Status:Under the Square and Compass
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82
GPA: 5.78
WE:Marketing (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82
Posts: 853
Kudos: 912
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kanikaa9
Krunaal when we use 'combinations', we do so when order doesn't matter, then why are we dividing the result by 2!?

Krunaal

The correct approach includes dividing by 2! => \(4C2 * 2C2 * \frac{1}{2!}\)

We divide by 2! (the factorial of the number of pairs) because the order of the teams does not matter. For example, if the 4 people are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, the team-selection (1,2); (3,4) would be considered the same as (3,4); (1,2), as there is no specific order assigned to the teams.


You can practice similar questions here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/distributing ... 56656.html

While 4C2 and 2C2 are combinations (used to choose team members without caring about order within each team), multiplying them gives us arrangements of two teams - and that does involve order (Team A then Team B vs. Team B then Team A).

Since the teams are unlabeled and swapping them doesn’t give a new outcome, we divide by 2! to correct for double-counting.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
Yosemite98
Joined: 28 Jan 2025
Last visit: 25 Jul 2025
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 29
Location: Spain
Concentration: Technology
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q86 V82 DI79
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q86 V82 DI79
Posts: 55
Kudos: 32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let me try to clear this out for you.
You are right, combinations formula is not taking into account orded INSIDE the team thus team 1 of (CD) is not beeing double counted with (DC).
Never the less, when you are selecting 2 from 4, you are considering all possibilities (not double counting inside a team) as follows:
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD
how ever, this is not correct since you need a pair of teams, which means that if you select (AB) as team 1 even without ordering them inside the team, team 2 is already selectes as well (as it will be CD). thus, the first and last option in the list above is in reality the same case and it does not have to be double counted.
hope it helps!

kanikaa9
Krunaal when we use 'combinations', we do so when order doesn't matter, then why are we dividing the result by 2!?

Krunaal
SIndo12
What would be wrong with my approach as 4C2? Pls help


The correct approach includes dividing by 2! => \(4C2 * 2C2 * \frac{1}{2!}\)

We divide by 2! (the factorial of the number of pairs) because the order of the teams does not matter. For example, if the 4 people are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, the team-selection (1,2); (3,4) would be considered the same as (3,4); (1,2), as there is no specific order assigned to the teams.


You can practice similar questions here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/distributing ... 56656.html
Moderators:
Math Expert
109778 posts
Tuck School Moderator
853 posts