Ask Singapore Homework?
Upload a photo of a Singapore homework and someone will email you the solution for free.
Question
secondary 3 | A Maths
One Answer Below
Anyone can contribute an answer, even non-tutors.
need help with this qn,, pls explain too :)
Date Posted: 3 years ago
Views: 349
need help with b(iii) and c only
Wait
See 1 Answer
done
{{ upvoteCount }} Upvotes
clear
{{ downvoteCount * -1 }} Downvotes
The part c on "largest perfect square" possible is ambiguous. I took it as just an ordinary largest square where the "perfect" means that all four sides are as equal as possible.
Date Posted:
3 years ago
A perfect square is a number that can be expressed as the product of two equal integers.
It's just like those prime factorisation questions.
It's just like those prime factorisation questions.
But the question mentioned “bent into the largest perfect square possible”.
The word is “bent”.
Based on my workings, if the sides really mean a length whose value is a perfect square, then maybe the length of each square is 25 cm.
But I still think that they meant that the shape is perfect (“bent into a perfect square”) rather than the value is a perfect square.
The word is “bent”.
Based on my workings, if the sides really mean a length whose value is a perfect square, then maybe the length of each square is 25 cm.
But I still think that they meant that the shape is perfect (“bent into a perfect square”) rather than the value is a perfect square.
Closest is 26 cm x 26 cm
26 cm x 4 = 104 cm
26 cm x 4 = 104 cm
But going by your thinking, there would be no difference between 'bent into a square' and 'bent into a perfect square' since for these Math questions ideality is assumed.
i.e for these questions, any square is ideal always has 4 equal sides and does not take into account any deviations in material thickness, length, accuracy of bending/cutting etc
So the inclusion of the word 'perfect' must take reference to the mathematical definition.
i.e for these questions, any square is ideal always has 4 equal sides and does not take into account any deviations in material thickness, length, accuracy of bending/cutting etc
So the inclusion of the word 'perfect' must take reference to the mathematical definition.
for ii why must include the unused portion tho
This one is subjective.
Personally for part a, I feel that the cost of making one clip is based on the portion of length used to make the clips and should not include the length that is unused at the end.
However, for part b, the "profit" will have to take into account the fact that Linda has "already" purchased all the wires, including the unused portion. In other words, the purchase has already been made. So, in my computation of profit, it is based on the total expense of the wires and the revenue collected. In such a case, I assume that the remaining length of wire is treated as "sold at $0 per piece".
Personally for part a, I feel that the cost of making one clip is based on the portion of length used to make the clips and should not include the length that is unused at the end.
However, for part b, the "profit" will have to take into account the fact that Linda has "already" purchased all the wires, including the unused portion. In other words, the purchase has already been made. So, in my computation of profit, it is based on the total expense of the wires and the revenue collected. In such a case, I assume that the remaining length of wire is treated as "sold at $0 per piece".
I am not 100% sure that the profit is based on the cost price of the portion of the wire which goes into the paper clips. This is highly dependent on the reader and does cause some ambiguity to readers as well.
It's like saying, I am selling 40 packs of biscuits to my customers at $1 per piece. However, when I bought the biscuits, I bought it in boxes of 7 containing 6 packs of biscuits each. I can't proportionate the cost of the remaining "2" unsold packs of biscuits as I have "already" paid for it. So my profit will be $100 minus the 2 unsold packs of biscuits because I already paid for the 2 unsold packs of biscuits as a whole.
It's like saying, I am selling 40 packs of biscuits to my customers at $1 per piece. However, when I bought the biscuits, I bought it in boxes of 7 containing 6 packs of biscuits each. I can't proportionate the cost of the remaining "2" unsold packs of biscuits as I have "already" paid for it. So my profit will be $100 minus the 2 unsold packs of biscuits because I already paid for the 2 unsold packs of biscuits as a whole.
The whole 20.5m of wire has already been paid for. So no matter how many clips you make to sell, your sunk cost is that amount.
Profit = Revenue/income - cost
Think about the case where she did not manage to sell any clips.
Did she make a profit? No. Did she make a loss? Yes. By how much? $24.60. There's no profit, but there is a loss made without a doubt.
Profit = Revenue/income - cost
Think about the case where she did not manage to sell any clips.
Did she make a profit? No. Did she make a loss? Yes. By how much? $24.60. There's no profit, but there is a loss made without a doubt.
Just realised something. You've rounded the selling price of a clip down to $1.20 in ii). But if you do that, your total profit will be less than $100.
So it should be rounded up to $1.30
So it should be rounded up to $1.30
360 Tutoring Program