Off-by-one on range boundaries
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Move from brute-force thinking to an efficient approach using array strategy.
You are given an array people where people[i] is the weight of the ith person, and an infinite number of boats where each boat can carry a maximum weight of limit. Each boat carries at most two people at the same time, provided the sum of the weight of those people is at most limit.
Return the minimum number of boats to carry every given person.
Example 1:
Input: people = [1,2], limit = 3 Output: 1 Explanation: 1 boat (1, 2)
Example 2:
Input: people = [3,2,2,1], limit = 3 Output: 3 Explanation: 3 boats (1, 2), (2) and (3)
Example 3:
Input: people = [3,5,3,4], limit = 5 Output: 4 Explanation: 4 boats (3), (3), (4), (5)
Constraints:
1 <= people.length <= 5 * 1041 <= people[i] <= limit <= 3 * 104Problem summary: You are given an array people where people[i] is the weight of the ith person, and an infinite number of boats where each boat can carry a maximum weight of limit. Each boat carries at most two people at the same time, provided the sum of the weight of those people is at most limit. Return the minimum number of boats to carry every given person.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Two Pointers · Greedy
[1,2] 3
[3,2,2,1] 3
[3,5,3,4] 5
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #881: Boats to Save People
class Solution {
public int numRescueBoats(int[] people, int limit) {
Arrays.sort(people);
int ans = 0;
for (int i = 0, j = people.length - 1; i <= j; --j) {
if (people[i] + people[j] <= limit) {
++i;
}
++ans;
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #881: Boats to Save People
func numRescueBoats(people []int, limit int) int {
sort.Ints(people)
ans := 0
for i, j := 0, len(people)-1; i <= j; j-- {
if people[i]+people[j] <= limit {
i++
}
ans++
}
return ans
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #881: Boats to Save People
class Solution:
def numRescueBoats(self, people: List[int], limit: int) -> int:
people.sort()
ans = 0
i, j = 0, len(people) - 1
while i <= j:
if people[i] + people[j] <= limit:
i += 1
j -= 1
ans += 1
return ans
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #881: Boats to Save People
struct Solution;
impl Solution {
fn num_rescue_boats(mut people: Vec<i32>, limit: i32) -> i32 {
let n = people.len();
people.sort_unstable();
people.reverse();
let mut i = 0;
let mut j = n - 1;
let mut res = 0;
while i <= j {
res += 1;
if people[i] + people[j] <= limit {
j -= 1;
}
i += 1;
}
res
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let people = vec![1, 2];
let limit = 3;
let res = 1;
assert_eq!(Solution::num_rescue_boats(people, limit), res);
let people = vec![3, 2, 2, 1];
let limit = 3;
let res = 3;
assert_eq!(Solution::num_rescue_boats(people, limit), res);
let people = vec![3, 5, 3, 4];
let limit = 5;
let res = 4;
assert_eq!(Solution::num_rescue_boats(people, limit), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #881: Boats to Save People
function numRescueBoats(people: number[], limit: number): number {
people.sort((a, b) => a - b);
let ans = 0;
for (let i = 0, j = people.length - 1; i <= j; --j) {
if (people[i] + people[j] <= limit) {
++i;
}
++ans;
}
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Two nested loops check every pair of elements. The outer loop picks one element, the inner loop scans the rest. For n elements that is n × (n−1)/2 comparisons = O(n²). No extra memory — just two loop variables.
Each pointer traverses the array at most once. With two pointers moving inward (or both moving right), the total number of steps is bounded by n. Each comparison is O(1), giving O(n) overall. No auxiliary data structures are needed — just two index variables.
Review these before coding to avoid predictable interview regressions.
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Wrong move: Advancing both pointers shrinks the search space too aggressively and skips candidates.
Usually fails on: A valid pair can be skipped when only one side should move.
Fix: Move exactly one pointer per decision branch based on invariant.
Wrong move: Locally optimal choices may fail globally.
Usually fails on: Counterexamples appear on crafted input orderings.
Fix: Verify with exchange argument or monotonic objective before committing.