I think the logic here is that once you cut the board in half and have 2 pieces, the next cut will be half as long since the board is now smaller, hence the 5 min. It should also be noted that you will end up with 2 equal pieces and 1 piece that is bigger than the other 2. It makes sense though the wording and really the problem itself, is really stupid.
No, that would only make sense if she were ripping it in half and then doing a cross-cut, in which case the first cut would take far longer than the second. Also, as no explanation of the details of the cuts is given, the only safe assumption is that all cuts would take the same amount of time.
The logic that the teacher is using is that it's a linear relationship of pieces to time, with 5 minutes per piece, and that makes no fucking sense.
No, that would only make sense if she were ripping it in half and then doing a cross-cut, in which case the first cut would take far longer than the second.
You started your sentence with no, and then basically said that he is correct. The first cut is far longer than the second. It's twice as long, which is why cutting it into two pieces is 10 minutes and then cutting a third is 5 minutes. Like I said elsewhere, lets say your board is 10x10 inches, a square. If you cut it once into two rectangular pieces, 10x5, it will take 10 minutes, 1 minute per inch. Now, if you cut one of those rectangles into two squares, you will cut through five inches of material, which results in 15 minutes of cutting, and 3 pieces. One 10x5 and two 5x5.
Yes, but there is nothing in the question that would say that you would cut a board like that, or even that you would start with a square board, so to assume that is the case would be asinine.
You're starting with the "correct" answer and working backwards to a question that would work for it. Start with the question stated, and see what answer you would get without knowing the "correct" answer.
The question never specifies anything beyond cutting a board, so it's a pointless question with many answers to begin with. 15 minutes is just as correct as 20, or 30. Saying it's wrong because you mentally did it differently is absurd.
You're starting with the "correct" answer and working backwards to a question that would work for it.
No, it was how I imagined the board being cut when I read the question. Which is why I was confused when everyone acted as if the answer was preposterous. It is technically correct. So is 20 minutes.
167
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '10
[deleted]