I got this from a board I operate. This is another one of those questions that operates on simple logic that people struggle with it. Are you one of those people?
I'd say seven. For a girl to have three sisters, there would have to be four girls, and for a boy to have two brothers, there would have to be three boys...unless one of them is a hermaphrodite...
oops...i meant 7...but i put six. and not just cuz everybody else has seven...but because it doesn't make sense any other way.
yeah it's seven, because at a minimum, there have to be 3 boys so each of them can have 2 brothers and at least 4 girls so each of them can have 3 sisters.
"Each child in a family has at least 2 brothers and 3 sisters. What is the smallest number of children the family could have?" Let's say that we are talking about a boy here: He would have himself as well as 2 brothers and 3 sisters, so 6 kids. If it is a girl we are talking about: Then you have herself as well as 2 brothers and 3 sisters, so also 6 kids. Looks like it is 6.
I multiplied 2 by 3 and added one to the answer = 7 Trust me. I'm Asian. I would know... Actually I voted 6
That's what I thought right away when I voted 6 without thinking about it, but I was wrong. Say you are using a girl as the 6th. She has at least 2 brothers and 3 sisters, right? Well, the same has to be true of all of them because the problems says each child has at least 2 bros and 3 sisters. In this scenario, you have 2 boys and 4 girls for a total of 6. If you try and match the criteria, neither of the boys would have at least 2 brothers, they'd only have one brother and 4 sisters. It has to be 7, a boy and a girl for a total of 3 boys and 4 girls.
Hmm, I see where you are coming from and I think you are right. Forgot about the "each" part. And here I am - a former math major, lol!
