Fredek runs a private hotel. He claims that whenever $ n \ge 3$ guests visit the hotel, it is possible to select two guests that have equally many acquaintances among the other guests, and that also have a common acquaintance or a common unknown among the guests. For which values of $ n$ is Fredek right? (Acquaintance is a symmetric relation.)
1. **Case 1: \( n \) is odd**

   Suppose \( n \) is odd. By the pigeonhole principle, there are two guests with the same number of acquaintances. Let's denote these two guests as \( A \) and \( B \). If \( A \) and \( B \) do not have a common acquaintance or a common unknown, then each of them must know exactly \( \frac{n-2}{2} \) other people. However, since \( n \) is odd, \( \frac{n-2}{2} \) is not an integer, which leads to a contradiction. Therefore, Fredek is right for odd \( n \).

2. **Case 2: \( n \) is even and \( n \geq 6 \)**

   Suppose Fredek is wrong for some \( n \geq 6 \) even. By the pigeonhole principle, there are two guests, say \( A \) and \( B \), with the same number of acquaintances. Each of them has either \( \frac{n}{2} \) or \( \frac{n-2}{2} \) acquaintances. 

   Consider the guests other than \( A \) and \( B \). Among these guests, there must exist two guests, say \( C \) and \( D \), with the same number of acquaintances. Each of \( C \) and \( D \) knows exactly one of \( A \) and \( B \), thus they have either \( \frac{n}{2} \) or \( \frac{n-2}{2} \) acquaintances. 

   Similarly, there must exist two more guests, say \( E \) and \( F \), with either \( \frac{n}{2} \) or \( \frac{n-2}{2} \) acquaintances. 

   Among the six guests \( A, B, C, D, E, F \), there must exist three guests with the same number of acquaintances (again by the pigeonhole principle). Among these three guests, at least one must be a common acquaintance or a common unknown for the other two. Therefore, Fredek is right for even \( n \geq 6 \).

3. **Case 3: \( n = 4 \)**

   For \( n = 4 \), consider the following configuration:
   - Guest \( A \) knows only guest \( B \).
   - Guest \( B \) knows guests \( A \) and \( C \).
   - Guest \( C \) knows guests \( B \) and \( D \).
   - Guest \( D \) knows only guest \( C \).

   In this configuration, no two guests have the same number of acquaintances and also have a common acquaintance or a common unknown. Therefore, Fredek is wrong for \( n = 4 \).

The final answer is \( \boxed{ n \geq 3 } \) except \( n = 4 \).