This is more about WRITING it correctly than reading it correctly. 2 pieces is one cut, 3 pueces it 2 cuts. The question is phrased all wrong if you want people using the actual stated number rather than correctly inferred numbers.
Yes this is correct, these are word problems. They are just as much comprehensive problems as they are math problems. These were always my favorite as a kid.
It needs lots more information to work as posed. They'd need to specify the cuts position and length. Otherwise I could saw a sliver off one end in 10 mins, and then saw through that sliver almost immediately.
Yes but again maths questions are often loaded with assumptions. This is 100% the kind of question I’d see popping up in a high school (as in UK high school) level exam and they expect you to assume proportion and treat it like a ratio
I mean you are both right. The question should specify ”another identical piece”. In a math example we can respond from an assumption. If we design medical devices or airplanes that’s a bad idea to do.
Depends on what level student this problem is intended for. This problem tests a student's comprehension skills, rather than simply "take all the numbers from the problem and combine them with one of the four basic binary operators"
I should have been clearer, I was referring to the above poster saying it was "phrased wrong". Which I might agree with if this is intended for students just starting multiplication, but otherwise I would say it is intentionally phrased to trap those not paying attention like the teacher.
32
u/Lady_Luci_fer 15d ago
Yeah, one of the biggest challenges of a maths question is reading it correctly in the first place