P=2(L+W), P=48, W=L-4. Width?
- A. 10
- B. 12
- C. 20
- D. 24
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
To find the width (W), start with the given perimeter formula \( P = 2(L + W) \). Substituting \( P = 48 \) gives \( 48 = 2(L + W) \), which simplifies to \( L + W = 24 \). Given \( W = L - 4 \), substitute this into the equation: \( L + (L - 4) = 24 \). This simplifies to \( 2L - 4 = 24 \), leading to \( 2L = 28 \) and \( L = 14 \). Thus, \( W = 14 - 4 = 10 \). Option B (12) does not satisfy the perimeter equation. Option C (20) and Option D (24) also do not fit the derived equations, confirming that W must be 10.
To find the width (W), start with the given perimeter formula \( P = 2(L + W) \). Substituting \( P = 48 \) gives \( 48 = 2(L + W) \), which simplifies to \( L + W = 24 \). Given \( W = L - 4 \), substitute this into the equation: \( L + (L - 4) = 24 \). This simplifies to \( 2L - 4 = 24 \), leading to \( 2L = 28 \) and \( L = 14 \). Thus, \( W = 14 - 4 = 10 \). Option B (12) does not satisfy the perimeter equation. Option C (20) and Option D (24) also do not fit the derived equations, confirming that W must be 10.
Other Related Questions
Which student wrote the estimate closest to 1,592 + 8?
- A. Isabella
- B. Jayden
- C. Michael
- D. Sarah
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Isabella's estimate of 1,592 + 8 is 1,600, which is closest to the actual sum. This estimation rounds 1,592 to 1,590 and adds 10 for simplicity, yielding 1,600. Jayden likely underestimated or rounded incorrectly, resulting in a less accurate estimate. Michael may have rounded too far or added an incorrect value, leading to a larger discrepancy. Sarah's estimate might not have accounted properly for the addition, causing it to stray further from the actual result. Thus, Isabella’s approach demonstrates the most accurate estimation strategy.
Isabella's estimate of 1,592 + 8 is 1,600, which is closest to the actual sum. This estimation rounds 1,592 to 1,590 and adds 10 for simplicity, yielding 1,600. Jayden likely underestimated or rounded incorrectly, resulting in a less accurate estimate. Michael may have rounded too far or added an incorrect value, leading to a larger discrepancy. Sarah's estimate might not have accounted properly for the addition, causing it to stray further from the actual result. Thus, Isabella’s approach demonstrates the most accurate estimation strategy.
d=rt, triple d, same t, new rate?
- A. 3dt
- B. (3d)/t
- C. t/(3d)
- D. d/(3t)
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
In the equation d = rt, if distance (d) is tripled while time (t) remains constant, the new distance becomes 3d. To find the new rate (r'), we can rearrange the formula to r' = d/t. Substituting the new distance gives r' = (3d)/t, which is option B. Option A (3dt) incorrectly suggests multiplying distance by time, which does not represent rate. Option C (t/(3d)) misplaces the variables, implying time is divided by distance, which does not align with the rate formula. Option D (d/(3t)) incorrectly divides distance by three times the time, again misrepresenting the relationship between distance, rate, and time.
In the equation d = rt, if distance (d) is tripled while time (t) remains constant, the new distance becomes 3d. To find the new rate (r'), we can rearrange the formula to r' = d/t. Substituting the new distance gives r' = (3d)/t, which is option B. Option A (3dt) incorrectly suggests multiplying distance by time, which does not represent rate. Option C (t/(3d)) misplaces the variables, implying time is divided by distance, which does not align with the rate formula. Option D (d/(3t)) incorrectly divides distance by three times the time, again misrepresenting the relationship between distance, rate, and time.
Prime numbers? Select ALL.
- A. 21
- B. 23
- C. 25
- D. 27
- E. 29
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B,E
Prime numbers are defined as natural numbers greater than 1 that have no positive divisors other than 1 and themselves. - **Option A: 21** is not prime because it can be divided by 1, 3, 7, and 21. - **Option B: 23** is prime; it has no divisors other than 1 and 23. - **Option C: 25** is not prime as it can be divided by 1, 5, and 25. - **Option D: 27** is not prime since it can be divided by 1, 3, 9, and 27. - **Option E: 29** is prime; it has no divisors other than 1 and 29. Thus, 23 and 29 are the only prime numbers in the list.
Prime numbers are defined as natural numbers greater than 1 that have no positive divisors other than 1 and themselves. - **Option A: 21** is not prime because it can be divided by 1, 3, 7, and 21. - **Option B: 23** is prime; it has no divisors other than 1 and 23. - **Option C: 25** is not prime as it can be divided by 1, 5, and 25. - **Option D: 27** is not prime since it can be divided by 1, 3, 9, and 27. - **Option E: 29** is prime; it has no divisors other than 1 and 29. Thus, 23 and 29 are the only prime numbers in the list.
178-degree angle?
- A. Acute
- B. Obtuse
- C. Right
- D. Straight
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
An angle measuring 178 degrees is classified as obtuse, as it is greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. Option A, acute, refers to angles less than 90 degrees, which does not apply here. Option C, right, denotes a 90-degree angle, clearly not fitting for 178 degrees. Option D, straight, describes a 180-degree angle, which is also not applicable since 178 degrees is slightly less than that. Thus, the only suitable classification for a 178-degree angle is obtuse.
An angle measuring 178 degrees is classified as obtuse, as it is greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. Option A, acute, refers to angles less than 90 degrees, which does not apply here. Option C, right, denotes a 90-degree angle, clearly not fitting for 178 degrees. Option D, straight, describes a 180-degree angle, which is also not applicable since 178 degrees is slightly less than that. Thus, the only suitable classification for a 178-degree angle is obtuse.