CSAT Solved Papers/ 2025/Q28
2025 CSAT — Q28
There are sets of numbers each having only three positive integers with LCM equal to and HCF equal to . What is the value of ?
Worked rationale
Factorise: — three distinct primes, each to the first power. Any number whose LCM with others is must divide , so each of the three integers is a product of a subset of .
Work prime by prime (the exponents are independent across primes). For a fixed prime and three numbers, each number either contains (exponent ) or not (exponent ). The two global conditions translate as:
- LCM the maximum exponent is : at least one of the three has .
- HCF the minimum exponent is : at least one of the three lacks .
So for each prime the “has/lacks” pattern across three slots must be neither all-have nor all-lack: admissible patterns. With three independent primes the count of ordered triples is
and even after collapsing to unordered sets the number stays far above .
Answer: (d) More than 8.
Why the other options miss
- A answered the sub-step, not the question: computes the per-prime count () and stops, forgetting to combine across the three independent primes ().
- B solved the wrong question: counts something like “divisors minus one” or mis-tallies a small hand-built list, landing one off a divisor count.
- C missed a case: counts the divisors of and calls each a “set,” confusing the building blocks with the triples built from them.
Specialist insight
The master technique for “count numbers with prescribed LCM and HCF” is decouple by prime and multiply. For each prime you only decide, across the slots, the max-exponent (set by the LCM) and min-exponent (set by the HCF); with square-free that reduces to “at least one has it, at least one lacks it” per prime, and independence gives . The trap distractors are all “small” because they each stop the calculation early — at one prime (), at a divisor count (), or at an off-by-one tally (). Recognising that the true count is in the hundreds (so “more than ”) is the entire insight; the exam rewards seeing the multiplicative explosion, not enumerating.
Decouple by prime: patterns per prime, and three independent primes give — vastly more than (the divisor-count trap).