moty.98 Wrote:I think that this is the reason for A being correct:
Average = Sum/(numbers in set)
Sum of numbers in S = Ave(S) * (number of numbers in set S)
Sum of numbers in T = Ave(T) * (number of numbers in set T)
It is given that Sum(S)=Sum(t).
Thus,
Ave(S) * (number of numbers in set S) = Ave(T) * (number of numbers in set T)
If Ave(s)<Ave(t), then
(number of numbers in set S) > (number of numbers in set T).
------------------------------------
Moty Keret
That is algebraically correct, but ONLY IF the average of each set is positive.
However, if Ave(s) = 0 and Ave(t) = positive, then according to this relationship,
moty.98 Wrote:I Ave(S) * (number of numbers in set S) = Ave(T) * (number of numbers in set T)
the # of terms in set S could be anything, and the # of terms in set T would have to be 0. That's nonsensical, so (1) constitutes a hidden, implied constraint that Ave(s) can't be 0. Ave(t) can't be 0, either, for the same reason.
Also, if Ave(s) and Ave(t) are both negative, then the relationship between the # of terms in the set is the
opposite of your algebraic conclusion. In this case, (# of terms in set S) < (# of terms in set T). Algebraically, this is because of the old "flip the sign when multiplying or dividing by a negative" rule. You might think of it this way:
Given: Ave(S) * (# of terms in set S) = Ave(T) * (# of terms in set T)
From (1): Ave(s) < Ave(t)
Without the specification that the averages are positive, one of the cases we must consider for (1) is Ave(s) < Ave(t) < 0.
So, the given becomes:
Ave(S) * (# of terms in set S) = Ave(T) * (# of terms in set T)
(more negative) * (# of terms in set S) = (less negative) * (# of terms in set T)
The # of terms in the sets must be positive, so to make the equation balance:
(more negative) * (less positive) = (less negative) * (more positive)
Therefore, 0 < (# of terms in set S) < (# of terms in set T)
I also like Ron's sample sets as proof:
RonPurewal Wrote:if S = 2, 2, 2 and T = 3, 3, then the sums are both 6, the average of S is less (2 vs. 3), and S has more integers.
if S = -3, -3 and T = -2, -2, -2, then the sums are both -6, the average of S is less (-3 vs. -2), and S has fewer integers.
so (a) is insufficient.
In short, we really do need clarification of whether the problem included the constraint that the averages are positive. If it did not, the problem is incorrect.