The first question does not say only one is wooden.
We have some misunderstandings to clear up, which are my fault.
Here is what I said, to give context:
Start with the numerator: how many ways are there to choose 3 red, 3 blue, and 3 green so that only one is wooden?
The denominator will be easier.
Since I talked about numerator and denominator, it should (in principle) be clear that I was suggesting that you think about the
second part (the probability) first:
In a room there are 16 wooden chairs and 10 plastic chairs. Except for the colour, the wooden chairs are identical and the same holds for the plastic chairs. Of the wooden chairs, 5 are red, 5 are blue and 6 are green. Of the plastic chairs, 4 are red, 2 are blue and 4 are green.
In how many different ways can 9 chairs be chosen from the total number of 26 chairs in the room such that there are 3 of each colour?
What is the probability that only one of the 9 chosen chairs is wooden?
Because you mentioned wooden chairs (which are not an issue in the first part), I supposed that you were responding to what I said, first finding the
numerator of the
probability in the
second part, which involves only one wooden chair. The
denominator of that fraction is what the
first part is asking for, which I was holding for last. I see that I just confused you.
So let's back up, and focus on the
first question, which is not a probability but a count.
Here is what you said, presumably about that:
I thought of all 9 wooden (3R, 3B, 3G), 8 plastic (3R, 2B, 4G) and 1 wooden (1B), 2 of each wooden and 1 of each plastic, 2 of each plastic and one of each wooden ... but there are more. Like this it takes ages. I am sure there is an easier way out which I am not seeing
But the first part doesn't mention being wooden at all! We just have 9 red, 7 blue, and 10 green chairs, and need to pick 3 of each color. This is not hard, because it doesn't require paying attention to what a chair is made of.
The woodenness of a chair comes into the second part only.
So give it another try. I apologize for confusing things.
(I'm assuming, by the way, that you quoted the problem exactly.)