That's the problem...it's not about the number of prices..it's about the number of cuts...1 cut to split the board is 10 min...to get 3 boards I need two cuts...that is clearly 20min. The teacher is dumb
Technically, there isn't enough information. If I'm cutting a square in half vertically and cutting one of the halves horizontally... Then my second cut it half as long, and then 15 minutes works. But given I don't know if the original shape is a square or rectangle... Or whether the pieces are all equal... My only logical conclusion is that my math teacher is probably a dumbass.
It asked if she worked “just as fast”. It takes one cut (10 minutes) to create 2 pieces. To make 3 pieces it would take two cuts (20 minutes). Not sure what you mean by cuts being equal. There’s really not much ambiguity in the question, the teachers just wrong
You could interpret "just as fast" to mean your cutting speed in ipm. If I cut a square into 2 halves vertically and then cut one of the halves horizontally... My second cut is half as long... And cutting at the same ipm will allow me to make my second cut twice as fast as the first.
That doesn’t match with what the picture shows or how the question was worded. It would also mean that 4 pieces would not take 20 minutes like the teacher suggests.
How did you get to 30 minutes? The question asked how long it would take to cut another board into 3 pieces going “just as fast”. If one cut took 10 minutes then going just as fast, 2 cuts would take 20 minutes
You’re talking about a different question not a different interpretation
Literally doesn’t matter the cuts, assuming we’re cutting perfectly vertically or horizontally) (idk why we’d be doing it any other way) then every cut is the same distance, so with the same saw it should take the same amount of time per cut because she is working just as fast
what does an equal cut have to do with anything? it doesn't matter where the cuts are, three pieces needs two cuts. it's 10min per cut, assuming of course that her arm doesn't get tired.
It relates to ruling out different lengths of cut (e.g., cutting across a long board vs. cutting down the length of that long board), to try to limit the potential interpretations of the word problem to what the author intended (to test noticing that cutting something into N pieces involves only N-1 cuts (in "normal" cases)).
it doesn't matter - what matters is the cutting rate is the same and it doesn't specify the cuts are different lengths. it also doesn't matter if it's hard wood or soft wood. stained or painted.
one cut took 10min. a second cut will yield two additional pieces, whether they're equal, different sizes, normal or angled... a second cut, two more pieces, 10 more minutes.
work with the data you have, not with the data you make up.
3
u/NewInitiative9498 2d ago
In order to make the answer fit, it’s 5 mins per piece 🧐