Ok niggers. Let's finish this argument once and for all.
It's not an impossible shape. It's just badly drawn and doesn't give enough information. If the angle is 90 degrees, then yes, it's impossible shape, but we don't know the angle, so as is, it's not impossible.
Don't assume that it's a 90 degree angle. It does not specify. Assuming that the angle is 90 degrees just because it looks like it is like assuming a nigger won't rape you just because he is in the NFL.
Pythagoras theorem doesn't work because it's not 90 degrees.
Once again, because we don't know the angle, it is impossible to solve. Not an impossible shape.
We can all agree that it's retarded though. So shut the fuck up and stop posting this.
8*5+12*5
We do know that its an isosceles trapezoid
>>71887664
You can't have a right angle triangle with sides 4, 5, and 8 units long.
Also that's wrong dumbass.
>>71888385
Is this even any special type of quadrilateral? It does not specify if the bases are parallel. Is it safe to asume?
>>71888470
Wouldn't it be 2,5,8? Because it appears to be an isosceles trapezoid since the legs are congruent. But, then it is not even a triangle. Who the fuck made this?!
>>71887664
>>71888650
In order for any of this to make sense with a right angle one of these would have to change:
5 changed to 7.7 (12-16=4, 4/2=2, 8^2-2^2=60, sqrt(60)=7.7)
16 changed to 24.5 (8^2-5^2=39, sqrt(39)=6.24, 2(6.24)+12=24.5)
12 to 0 and 16 to 12.5 ( (8^2-5^2=39, sqrt(39)=6.24, 2(6.24)=12.25) aka a triangle
>>71887529
It can't be 90 degrees. It is an isosceles trapezoid. If the angle were 90 degrees, then the side of the triangle would be 2. But 4 plus 25 does not equal 64. So the angle cannot be 90 degrees.
>>71889541
So basically the entire measurements are made up
>>71887529
Not knowing the angle doesn't make it impossible, you just can't use the simple form of pythagoras's theorem.
>>71887529
> implying you need Pythagoras theorem to solve this
>>71890091
Yup. It's bad enough the system is ruining our youth with political correctness and skewed perceptions of history/current events, they're also fucking up math. Welcome to 1984 where 2+2=5
>>71890467
Exactly.... just imagine it has a whole rectangle with one triangle moved to the other side. 5 x 16. done.
>>71887664
Umm I think new moot needs to make a /Math/ board so I can umm learn how to do it from posters like you
>>71890467
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
Yeah, I assumed it was a 90 degree angle.
I need to read before I post.
>>71888522
Win
>>71888522
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME...! >__<
If the 2 sides are the same length then they must be parallel....
>>71890680
Proof?
>>71890589
You still don't need trig to solve it.. think about it. You're given the height, total width, and you know it's sides are the same size.
>>71890719
Since the length of the top and bottom are given, if the angles were off, each side could not be 8. Each side is 8, so the angles must be the same, therefor parallel.
>>71887529
Jesus fucking Christ
Okay, they fucked up the sides of the damn thing. We got it. The sides aren't even necessary to solve it. 0.5(12+16)5
There you go, now shut the fuck up
I'm pretty sure the answer is 70
>>71890921
I bet there is a line below the problem we don't that says something like "You don't need trigonometry to solve this problem" or "explain your reasoning"
>>71890921
>>71890925
AND THAT'S THE FUCKING ANSWER
CAN WE PLEASE BAN THE NEXT PERSON TO MAKE THIS SHITTY THREAD
70
>>71887529
It's 80 faggots. You guys can't even do simple maths yet give an opinion on complex political topics lmao. You should all be gased for your incompetence.
>>71887529
u guys are retarded
there obviously IS a 90 degree angle. Why? because that dotted line means the line is AUXILARY (aka, nonexistant. AKA, implied) so since it's auxilary and implied, you can make the assumption that it is perpendicular to the 16 unit segment.
by definition of perpendicular, you can conclude that it forms two adjacent, congruent angles, and from that definition, you can conclude that those two angles are supplementary, and use the thm. perpendicular lines form right angles, you can conclude that the angle is indeed right.
Are American kids always this rebellious when solving maths problems?
Even in the third world, students would never bitch about this kind of thing, and just shut up and solve the damn question.
Are all 1st world students this childish?
It's 80 r-right guys
>>71891201
oh fuck it's 70 it's 70 I MEANT 70
>>71891267
No wait fuck I DID mean 80. It's 80
This is really simple..
>you have to find the area of the two triangles first. Area of a triangle is LXH divided by 2.
>The length is 2 because 16-12 equals 4, divided by 2, because there are 2 triangles.
>2X5 is 10, divided by 2 is 5
> 10 is the area of both triangles combined.
> 12X 5 is 60, so thats the area of square in the middle.
>60 plus 10 is 70
that is assuming the dimensions actually make sense, which they don't, but they there were, the answer would be 70
>>71887529
>writing impossible
>expecting the stupid teacher who made this problem to reward you for finding a mistake
>not writing 70
>thinking beyond this point
That why you fail senpai.
>>71891201
Why Kenosha county so sad?
>>71887529
64-25=39. Sqrt(39) = 6.2
Thus the triangles have a bottom of 6.2 This means that the base of the trapezoid is 12.4+12=24.4
The base of the trapezoid is off by 8 and still this poor kid would need a calculator
>>71891201
fucking rust belt
You guys are retards lol
couldn't just one side be 3.1 cm or whatever for it to work?
>>71891069
Assuming you ignore 8 as a typo like >>71890921
did then it is 70 (0.5(12+16)5=(14)5=70)
Off to the gas chamber you go
>>71887529
It's 80 you ultimate nigger. How do you not know fourth grade geometry?
>>71891371
Owned senpai
>>71887529
Here. I fixed it for you autists
>>71891636
whoops
>>71887529
>It's been posted again!
>"Don't assume it's 90 degrees!"
>Lol fine, you have enough info to solve for the side that makes 90 degrees
>16-12=4
>4/2=2
>8^2-2^2="Perpendicular side"
>7.74597
Well... fuck.
Yeah Common Core, what the shit man? Anyhow... assuming it's the 5 that is wrong:
>7.74597*12=92.95164 (the square)
>7.74597*2=15.49194 (the two triangles)
>A=92.95164+15.49194=108.44358
>>71891153
90 degrees would be the shortest distance
5 is still to short
Trapezoids are
((a+b)h)/2
>>71891691
I seriously doubt the height is what's wrong, retard
>>71890925
>>71891065
>>71891201
>>71891267
>>71891291
I can only hope you idiots are trolling, because I'd solved it in under 5 seconds mentally. It's a fucking even 100, just like >>71887664 posted the method to.
>>71888522
As an engineer. Its never safe to assume
>>71887529
It is still impossibly drawn in linear space.
Since both sides are 8, top is 12, bot is 16, the base of the triangle sides is 2.
The minimum distance from the top and base is sqrt(8*8 - 2*2) = sqrt(60) = 7.7 > 5.
Therefore it's impossible for any line between the top and base to be shorter than 7.7.
Unless it is not in linear space, or the top vertices of the 5 is actually somewhere on the slope, not at the top.
12*5+((16-12)/2)*5
dumbasses
itt: Plebs assuming too much
>>71891527
the picture is misleading. Never trust pictures, always go by numbers and measures.
Look at that triangle.
the sine of that corner angle of the trapezoid is 5 over 8, so go get a calculator and find the arcsine of 5/8 and you'll get a value between 30 and 45 degrees. this would mean that tip of the triangle would have to AT LEAST be 45 degrees or bigger than the one at the bottom.
but from the picture, it looks smaller than the base angle. This is why you have been mislead.
>>71890976
>fill in with colour and sing a merry tune, clap when you are done
checkmate atheists
>>71891778
It's 70 mate
>>71887529
IT'S MY MOMENT TO SHINE.
>>71887529
>Find area of t he square they give you in the middle
>find the area of both of the triangles on either side
>Add all 3 together
Done. Is /pol/ really this retarded?
>>71891876
looks right to me
>>71892028
The idea is that the triangles are wrong. You can't have a right triangle with sides 8, 5, and 2.
>>71892028
They argument is that the shape is impossible because it was mislabeled (it doesn't make a fucking difference)
>>71891766
Why would you figure that?
Lots of things could be wrong. You could have a trapezoid with 8 length sides and 12 top 16 bottom, or a trapezoid with 5 height and 12 top 16 bottom but 5.38516 sides, or a trapezoid with 8 length sides and 12 top 5 height but 24.49 bottom, or 8 length sides and 16 bottom and 5 height but 3.51 top... or arguably something not a trapezoid since it's merely an "object".
>>71892096
Okay, lets say 5,2, (29)^(1/2)
>>71892128
Because it looks like an elementary school problem teaching kids how to find the are of a trapezoid. I doubt they need the Pythagorean theorem or have an answer that has 8 significant figures
>>71892009
I buy this, good night.
>>71887664
>>71888650
>>71890467
>>71890581
>>71890856
>>71890680
>>71891069
>>71891201
>>71891346
>>71891469
>>71891527
As a math instructor, I have apparently failed to teach you long before common core came around.
as for your calculator>>71891469
that would mean that the sides labeled 8 should have been 5.3 using the pythagoras theorem.
>>71892009
>>71891789
>>71891876
Thank you
>>71891391
Poo in the loo, Rajesh.
>>71891909
This is a grade school problem. We had pictures like that in my textbooks back in the '90's. We always went by the numbers and just the numbers. The fucking right triangle could have had sides of 3 inches, 9 inches, and 18 inches. The teacher didn't expect us to even know what the Pythagorean theorem was, let alone apply it. We used a = bh/2, wrote in the number we got, and we were marked correctly for it. The underpaid fucker who illustrated the triangle didn't care if it was consistent with Pythagoras or not: he drew a triangle, tossed on some numbers, and that was the end of it. Stop overthinking this shit because it's not some fucking novelty exclusive to commie core books. The old ones were the same way.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+a+trapezoid
>>71892256
did you read OP ? we don't know the height. No angle = no height.
>>71892253
Yeah, so maybe they shouldn't write a fucked up problem asking them to find the area of an object that is either not a trapezoid or has mislabeled values.
Welcome to the joke.
>realizing every anon that went through and tried some convoluted method to working the problem never got laid and was a loser in high school
>>71891685
>drawn by Michael J Fox
WTF is wrong with you?
>>71892458
This is for kids.
>>71892463
>THEY MISLABELED SOMETHING IN A BOOK
>LET'S HAVE A THREAD ABOUT IT EVERYDAY
>LOOK HOW GOOD I AM AT MATHS
>>71892570
On a laptop. Really hard to use paint with a touchpad
>>71892598
>No_fun_allowed.jpeg
And you're calling others autists? Lol.
>>71892541
>muh dick
nice intelligence there, friend.
>>71887529
You don't even need pythagoras for the image.
A=12*5+4*5
A=60+20
A=80
>>71892541
>realizing you define success by getting laid and are in fact a complete loser yourself by normal people's standards
>>71892743
>>71892791
virgins detected
>>71892753
See>>71892388
>>71892773
Run the triangle through pythagoras and you will see why you are better fit to service Jamal than teach math.
>>71892854
I might be a virgin but at least I'm a good father
>>71892854
I'm willing to bet money that you are an insecure manlet who makes less than $50k/yr
The only thing you have going for you is that you've bought in to the Jewish media's culture of fuck strangers and don't have children, and think you are somehow better than others because you were able to convince a very average looking girl to have sex with you.
Congratulations.
>>71893020
Okay, that got me 8/10
>>71887529
You don't need path. theorem.
Divide it into three parts.
One square = A = L*W
Two triangles = A = 2 (0.5 * B * H)
Total Area = Area of the square + Area of the two triangles
SquareA = 12 * 5 = 60
TrianglesA = 2(0.5 * 2 * 5) = 20
Total Area = 60 + 20 = 80
Any shape is possible.
>t. Opology
Holy shit that shape isn't even possible with those fockin measurements. What the fuck are they teaching kids?!
>>71893407
>2(0.5*2*5) = 20
why does this trigger me every time without fail?
2(0.5*2*5) = 2(1*5) = 2(5) = 10
>>71893407
>TrianglesA = 2(0.5 * 2 * 5) = 20
This thread, with all the posters claiming they've solved a mislabeled grade school problem, is proof there are stubborn idiots among us.
"Now you know why Einstein built that bomb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOAQqsZr5Ds
>>71887529
70 units^2
isnt it just 112
>>71892354
I feel like i hit a nerve there whitboi.
>>71887529
Guys it's 70 and I'll explain you why in this picture. I'm not a common core fag btw.
>>71892009
Man..fuck math.
