Sam has 2 brothers and 2 sisters (one of them is Susie).

Susie has 2 brothers (one of them is Sam) and one sister.

*edit

LeeAnn, it’s simple. Since Sam is ONE of the brothers, he doesn’t have 2 brothers but Susie does. It goes the same for her – she only has one sister but Sam has two, since she’s one of his sisters. But she isn’t her own sister!

*edit

Maybe it will help if we give them all names. OK so here’s the kids in the family:

Sam

Seth

Susie

Sally

Susie has 2 brothers – Sam and Seth – and 1 sister – Sally.

Sam has 1 brother – Seth – and 2 sisters – Susie and Sally.

Sam has two sisters because Susie and Sally are both his sisters. He has one brother, Seth, because he can’t be his own brother.

Susie only has ONE sister, Sally, because she is the other girl in the family and she isn’t her own sister. She has two brothers, Sam and Seth.

So, Susie has twice as many brothers as Sam (she has two, he has one) and Sam has twice as many sisters as Susie (he has two, she has one).

Make sense now?

*edit

OOOOOOOOOOHHH!!!! I see now. I didn’t catch that 😀 And here I am thinking I’ve got it all figured out! 😀

I think Allen was right… I think where it says “Susie has twice as many brothers and sisters” it should probably say “Susie has twice as many brothers AS sisters”….

EDIT

So then Susie has 3 brothers and 2 sisters according to that. But she is supposed to have TWICE as many brothers and sisters as Sam.. But, Sam only has 2 brothers and 2 sisters. 2 brothers times 2 is 4. So there would have to be 4 boys.

EDIT

I know.. my point was that Susie is supposed to have twice as many brothers AND sisters, like the original question states. Therefore, she cannot have only 1 sister, she has to have TWICE the amount of sisters AND brothers that Sam has and that’s why the question and your logic don’t make sense (no offense).