How long until gender-neutral multi-stall bathrooms are commonplace in the United States?
>>71861644
Can someone explain what is wrong with that image? Isn't it 70
>>71861815
The values don't match the shape. Try doing Pythagoras on the triangles and decide whether the bottom line can realistically be 16.
You can technically calculate the area on the basis of the values but it's at odds with the shape.
>>71861815
A right-angle triangle with the sides being 2cm and 5cm can't have a hypothenuse that is 8cm
>>71862113
This. It's not a big deal for what I assume is a middle school level geometry problem, but /pol/ is full of autists.
The real mystery is what the fuck it has to do with unisex bathrooms.
>>71862113
>>71862113
Who cares? You don't need Pythagorean theorem for it. Its just like they don't draw picture to scale in textbooks
>>71861815
It's not a real rectangle. They took out two little pieces and now it's some weird shape that you can't find the area of. Area is length times height, but that wouldn't give you the area of that shape because the pieces are missing. The question has no answer.
>>71862386
It doesn't have to be in scale but it has to be consistent. Either the 8 or the 16 is wrong and makes the problem unsolvable as the shape is impossible.
Fucking leaf.
>>71862386
It wasn't exactly much trouble to make it a real trapezium.
>>71862486
>Trapeziums have no area equation
ayy lmao
>>71861644
What the fuck does this have to do with Common Core? I swear to god /pol/ has absolutely no clue what common core is. Usually we're better than just ranting about some Alex Jones talking points like the kikes want us to.
>>71862181
shouldn't it be 29^0.5
>>71862486
>>71862554
>>71862181
>>71862113
cmon
>>71863004
But that side can't be 16 because the hypothenuse is 8. Hope you're trolling, leaf.
>the sides are 2-5-8 right triangles
>4+25=64
>>71863004
The eight is a red herring to throw you off. This problem is not meant to be solved with Pythagoras so that number there is irrelevant. There is a chance they intentionally made that not work so only the people who approached it correctly got the right solution. It is the same thing as when questions show diagrams. They intentionally make them not to scale so people will have to take the right approach to solve them instead of just measuring the diagram.
>>71863004
The eight is needed because it shows that the triangle depicted is not a right triangle, which means the area cannot be calculated without further information.
>>71861644
>implying that this is a trapezoid
Absolutely no indicators and you cannot deduce that it is from the information given.
>>71862650
I'm positive these threads are satire and they get posted to slide the board and gather data.
>>71863541
whoops meant to reply to >>71863215
>>71863541
No the 8 proves that the line drawn from the top of the figure to the bottom is not the height of the figure. Furthermore, there is no box indicating it is a right angle. Since a^2 + b^2 does not equal c^2, it can be concluded that's it not a right triangle AND that's not the height of the figure. Therefore, the area cannot be found and the question has no solution.
>>71863739
ok this works too but thats a stupid question in that case
>>71863541
Or it's made that way so that anyone who doesn't answer that it's unsolvable immediately gets an F
>>71863541
>This problem is not meant to be solved with Pythagoras so that number there is irrelevant.
And that's why this is an example of why common core is shit. You have to solve it in a specific way (by using the difference of 12 and 16 to get the) to get the intended answer. If it was a properly formulated question, you would be able to use any fucking valid math to get the right answer.
Hell, if you wanted to you could use calculus to find the answer if it wasn't a shit problem
>>71863739
Wait nvm it is still solvable but you have to ignore the 5 and use the 2 and 8 triangle to find the real height
>>71862248
Yeah it's not a big deal if teachers assign entry level math problems where the "correct" answer requires students to make invalid assumptions about a shape that can't exist.
>>71863215
>>71862554
>>71862486
>>71862386
>>71862248
>>71862181
>>71862113
Dis you ever think that may be the point? It's impossible?
>>71863988
Yeah, you're right. You just have to use the Pythagorean Theorem to solve for the height of the figure. The 5 is the red herring. The question is correct & proper. I was wrong.
>>71864096
The correct answer is 14 times the square root of 60.
>>71864096
What gives the student the license to pick and choose what numbers he gets to 'ignore'? Why can't he ignore the 16? Or the 12?
>>71864197
This was a real good question. Currently, I'm in the process of studying for the GMAT. Wondering if they would attempt any trickery like this.
>>71864224
There is nothing indicating the 5 is the height of the figure. If it was indicated as a right angle with the base, we would know it's the height of the figure but it isn't. Therefore, you need to use the Pythagorean Theorem to solve for the height.
>>71864224
Nevermind again. It's an impossible figure. Using the Pythagorean theorem, the height is Square Root of 60, which is just shy of 8. If that line was not the height, it would have to be greater than Square Root of 60, not less than it. The figure is not possible.
>>71864453
What if the lines aren't actually straight and/or parallel? That would throw pythagoras out the window but would it make the shape at least possible? What about if it was a three-dimensional shape?
>>71864840
I mean this is also true. Definitely no way to solve it if the top and bottom aren't parallel. But all of the numbers could be possible, if the figure had a really bizarre shape (i.e. the image is not only not drawn to scale but looks nothing like the actual figure).
