Square side 5(1/2)cm. Area?
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: 121/4
To find the area of a square, the formula used is side length squared. Here, the side length is 5(1/2) cm, which converts to 5.5 cm or 11/2 cm. Squaring this value gives (11/2)² = 121/4 cm², confirming the correct area. The other options are incorrect because: - If calculated as 5 cm, the area would be 25 cm², neglecting the fractional part. - If 5.5 cm is incorrectly squared as 30.25 cm², it miscalculates the area. - Any other value derived from misinterpretation of the side length will not yield the correct area.
To find the area of a square, the formula used is side length squared. Here, the side length is 5(1/2) cm, which converts to 5.5 cm or 11/2 cm. Squaring this value gives (11/2)² = 121/4 cm², confirming the correct area. The other options are incorrect because: - If calculated as 5 cm, the area would be 25 cm², neglecting the fractional part. - If 5.5 cm is incorrectly squared as 30.25 cm², it miscalculates the area. - Any other value derived from misinterpretation of the side length will not yield the correct area.
Other Related Questions
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.
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.
Equivalent to 2(4f+2g)? Select ALL.
- A. 4*(2f+g)
- B. 4(2f+2g)
- C. 2f(4+2g)
- D. 16f+4g
- E. 8f+2g
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A,F
To determine which expressions are equivalent to \( 2(4f + 2g) \), we first simplify it: \[ 2(4f + 2g) = 8f + 4g \] Now, let's analyze each option: **A: \( 4(2f + g) \)** This expands to \( 8f + 4g \), matching our simplified expression. **B: \( 4(2f + 2g) \)** This simplifies to \( 8f + 8g \), which does not match \( 8f + 4g \). **C: \( 2f(4 + 2g) \)** This expands to \( 8f + 4fg \), introducing an extra term \( 4fg \) that makes it unequal. **D: \( 16f + 4g \)** This expression has \( 16f \), which is double the \( 8f \) we expect, thus it is not equivalent. **E: \( 8f + 2g \)** Here, while \( 8f \) matches, \( 2g \) does not equal \( 4g \), making it non-equivalent. **F: \( 8f + 4g \)** This matches our simplified expression exactly, confirming its equivalence. In summary, options A and F correctly represent the original expression, while B, C, D, and E do not.
To determine which expressions are equivalent to \( 2(4f + 2g) \), we first simplify it: \[ 2(4f + 2g) = 8f + 4g \] Now, let's analyze each option: **A: \( 4(2f + g) \)** This expands to \( 8f + 4g \), matching our simplified expression. **B: \( 4(2f + 2g) \)** This simplifies to \( 8f + 8g \), which does not match \( 8f + 4g \). **C: \( 2f(4 + 2g) \)** This expands to \( 8f + 4fg \), introducing an extra term \( 4fg \) that makes it unequal. **D: \( 16f + 4g \)** This expression has \( 16f \), which is double the \( 8f \) we expect, thus it is not equivalent. **E: \( 8f + 2g \)** Here, while \( 8f \) matches, \( 2g \) does not equal \( 4g \), making it non-equivalent. **F: \( 8f + 4g \)** This matches our simplified expression exactly, confirming its equivalence. In summary, options A and F correctly represent the original expression, while B, C, D, and E do not.
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.