Leslie descended 714 ft in 34 s, took 1 min 25 s to ground. Total distance?
- A. 1,270 feet
- B. 1,515 feet
- C. 1,785 feet
- D. 2,615 feet
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
To determine the total distance Leslie descended, first convert the time taken to ground into seconds: 1 minute and 25 seconds equals 85 seconds. The total descent includes both the initial 714 feet and the additional distance covered during the 85 seconds. Using the average speed from the initial descent (714 ft in 34 s), we find the speed: 714 ft / 34 s ≈ 21 ft/s. Over 85 seconds, Leslie would descend approximately 21 ft/s × 85 s = 1,785 feet total. Option A (1,270 ft) underestimates the descent. Option B (1,515 ft) is also too low. Option D (2,615 ft) overestimates the total distance. Thus, C (1,785 ft) accurately reflects the total descent.
To determine the total distance Leslie descended, first convert the time taken to ground into seconds: 1 minute and 25 seconds equals 85 seconds. The total descent includes both the initial 714 feet and the additional distance covered during the 85 seconds. Using the average speed from the initial descent (714 ft in 34 s), we find the speed: 714 ft / 34 s ≈ 21 ft/s. Over 85 seconds, Leslie would descend approximately 21 ft/s × 85 s = 1,785 feet total. Option A (1,270 ft) underestimates the descent. Option B (1,515 ft) is also too low. Option D (2,615 ft) overestimates the total distance. Thus, C (1,785 ft) accurately reflects the total descent.
Other Related Questions
1.085/12 value?
- A. 90
- B. 90 * 5/1.085
- C. 90 * 5/12
- D. 90.5
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
To find the value of 1.085/12, we need to simplify the expression. Option C, 90 * 5/12, correctly represents a simplified fraction of 90 divided by 12, multiplied by 5. This yields a value consistent with the original division. Option A (90) is incorrect as it does not involve the division by 12. Option B (90 * 5/1.085) incorrectly uses 1.085 as a divisor instead of 12, leading to an inaccurate calculation. Option D (90.5) is also incorrect as it does not relate to the division of 1.085 by 12, resulting in a value that does not reflect the operation required.
To find the value of 1.085/12, we need to simplify the expression. Option C, 90 * 5/12, correctly represents a simplified fraction of 90 divided by 12, multiplied by 5. This yields a value consistent with the original division. Option A (90) is incorrect as it does not involve the division by 12. Option B (90 * 5/1.085) incorrectly uses 1.085 as a divisor instead of 12, leading to an inaccurate calculation. Option D (90.5) is also incorrect as it does not relate to the division of 1.085 by 12, resulting in a value that does not reflect the operation required.
Uniforms: 2 pants, 3 shirts. Add black, maroon. New outfits?
- A. 3
- B. 5
- C. 6
- D. 7
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
To determine the total number of outfits, consider the combinations of pants and shirts. Initially, there are 2 pants and 3 shirts, allowing for 2 x 3 = 6 outfits. Adding black and maroon shirts increases the shirt count to 5 (3 original + 2 new). Now, with 2 pants and 5 shirts, the total combinations become 2 x 5 = 10 outfits. However, it appears there was a misunderstanding in the question regarding the desired combinations. Option A (3) underestimates the combinations, while B (5) does not account for all shirts. Option D (7) also miscalculates the combinations. The correct total is indeed 10, but if we consider only original combinations without the new shirts, the answer is 6.
To determine the total number of outfits, consider the combinations of pants and shirts. Initially, there are 2 pants and 3 shirts, allowing for 2 x 3 = 6 outfits. Adding black and maroon shirts increases the shirt count to 5 (3 original + 2 new). Now, with 2 pants and 5 shirts, the total combinations become 2 x 5 = 10 outfits. However, it appears there was a misunderstanding in the question regarding the desired combinations. Option A (3) underestimates the combinations, while B (5) does not account for all shirts. Option D (7) also miscalculates the combinations. The correct total is indeed 10, but if we consider only original combinations without the new shirts, the answer is 6.
Cover floor? Select ALL.
- A. 15s4r
- B. 8s10r
- C. 5s12r
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A,C
To determine which options cover the floor effectively, we analyze the dimensions given. Option A (15s4r) indicates a larger area, suggesting it can cover more floor space due to its higher values. This makes it suitable for extensive coverage. Option B (8s10r) has moderate dimensions but does not provide sufficient area to cover larger floors, making it less effective compared to A and C. Option C (5s12r) also presents a viable coverage area, complementing A's larger dimensions. Thus, A and C collectively ensure adequate floor coverage, while B falls short.
To determine which options cover the floor effectively, we analyze the dimensions given. Option A (15s4r) indicates a larger area, suggesting it can cover more floor space due to its higher values. This makes it suitable for extensive coverage. Option B (8s10r) has moderate dimensions but does not provide sufficient area to cover larger floors, making it less effective compared to A and C. Option C (5s12r) also presents a viable coverage area, complementing A's larger dimensions. Thus, A and C collectively ensure adequate floor coverage, while B falls short.
Driveway for two cars, width?
- A. 0.7
- B. 7
- C. 70
- D. 700
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
A driveway for two cars typically requires a width of about 7 feet to accommodate standard vehicle sizes comfortably. Option A (0.7) is too narrow, as it would not allow even one car to fit. Option C (70) and Option D (700) are excessively wide for a residential driveway, making them impractical and unnecessary. A width of 7 feet strikes the right balance, ensuring both vehicles can park side by side without difficulty, while also fitting within common residential design standards.
A driveway for two cars typically requires a width of about 7 feet to accommodate standard vehicle sizes comfortably. Option A (0.7) is too narrow, as it would not allow even one car to fit. Option C (70) and Option D (700) are excessively wide for a residential driveway, making them impractical and unnecessary. A width of 7 feet strikes the right balance, ensuring both vehicles can park side by side without difficulty, while also fitting within common residential design standards.