So NEETS lets test that "self education" of yours.
The answer of pic-related is 20, explain.
Sawing a board into two pieces takes one cut. Sawing a board into three pieces takes two cuts. If one cut takes 10 minutes, two will take 20.
10 minutes for one cut, means 20 minutes for 2
>>26985085
i'm such a failure i cant even do basic math anymore...
>>26985085
10 minutes = one cut into 2 pieces
20 minutes = twice as long to make 2 cuts, leaving 3 pieces
No, it's fifteen the teacher saided it
logic says it takes 10 minutes to make 1 cut then it takes 20 to make 2 cuts needed to make 3 pieces
but unfortunately the pic is about teaching grade schoolers fractions, so that logic can be thrown out
Because if 1 cut took her 10 minutes, 2 cuts would take twice that time.
Now talk to me about my crippling fear of intimacy and how Im going to fuck up with the qt I been talking to online recently
>>26985085
>women literally need ten minutes to saw a board in half
i think the logic is that you only need to make "half a cut" which takes half the time as a full cut
>>26985085
It is 15 you idiot
2x=10
x=5
3*5=15
On second thought, it doesn't say if the pieces have o be equal or how they were cut, so answer could literally be anything
>>26985085
I was going to answer this but then I realized that that's dumb since it was already answered in the first post.
>>26985147
THERE's NO SUCH THING AS A HALF CUT
>>26985085
OK so, I have a phd in engineering from a top usa uni... and I don't understand why 15..unless the original cut was at some angle diagonal to the plane?
fucking serious I do not understand this
>>26985164
It takes 10 minutes to saw two equal sized pieces, therefore to get a 3rd half-sized piece (From one of the original two pieces) you make a half cut which only takes 5 minutes
>>26985151
The word problem doesn't actually match up to that equation.
>>26985155
5164 here, yea something like this or in the Z plane for original cut is the only plausible rationale.. but if there's no pic, you can make up anything for the answer..
>>26985151
This
It takes 5 minutes to saw one board. 3*5= 15
>>26985162
suppose we have a square piece of wood, and the time it takes the saw to run through the entire length of this wood is 10 minutes. cut once, split the wood in half. time required is 10 minutes. take one of these halves and cut it in half, the time it takes the saw to run through this part is 5 minutes. now you have a piece of size 1/2, and two pieces of size 1/4.
>>26985151
>converting to mathematical formula instead of visualizing
autism detected
Pic related 20 assuming cuts and board segments are equal
>>26985151
>2 Cuts = 10 minutes?
If you're cutting a board in half thats one cut.
You're retarded.
>>26985204
No it takes 10 minutes
>>26985182
>half cut
nigga..
>>26985182
But it says "from another board" , which implies neither of the two boards generated by the original cut
>>26985182
How do you figure it's a half cut when the dimensions of the board are all constant except for the length?
The answer is 15origi+anal
>>26985182
>one board
>10 minutes for two pieces
>asks how long it'll take to cut another board in 3 pieces
I don't get your explanation to the greentext.
>>26985215
>>26985185
>Thinking in terms of "cuts" instead of "rate at which pieces are cut".
ITS ABOUT RATE YOU TRASH! RATE! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
>>26985085
This is exactly the kind of unrealistic, useless work that I was forced to waste my whole childhood doing.
Fuck baby boomers and their torturing kids with pointless stress
>>26985264
The answer is 20.
Cut in half = 10 minutes.
Cut one of the piece in half = 10 minutes.
15 minute fags BTFO.
If it took 10 minutes to saw one board into 2 we can assume it took 5 minutes per cut(10 divided by 2 = 5).
Now we need to know how long it will take to cut 3, so we times 5(the amount of time needed to cut one) times 3(the amount we need) which turns out to be 15(5*3=15)
The answer is 15
How can anyone get confused with this question?
>>26985264
Yeah it takes 10 minutes to do 1 cut, but because youre wanting 3 pieces in the second bit, and 3/2 is 1.5, it'll take you 1.5 times the time to cut it, 1.5*10 is 15, hence 15 minutes
>>26985085
(10/2) = (5/1)
(5/1)*3 = 15
The problem implies that the 3 pieces are always cut from the same direction, therefore you don't need to conisider anything else. The size of the pieces was not taken as relevant.
You don't need a degree in astrophysics to solve that, even who attended elementary school knows how to solve this kind of problems.
>>26985085
it could be either 20 or 15, depending on how she cut the board.
You know the teacher is a woman when she doesn't know anything about the most basic "carpentry" or just simple logic and reasoning... literally just cutting planks, an awfully simple and straightforward thing.
>>26985319
>How can anyone get confused with this question?
please do tell
>If it took 10 minutes to saw one board into 2 we can assume it took 5 minutes per cut(10 divided by 2 = 5).
You don't cut a board twice to get two pieces.
>all these retards talking about cutting directions and shit to save face lel
There is only one objective answer, MORONS lmao
>>26985323
5164 again.. I seriously need whatever the fuck this "teacher" was smoking
>>26985323
no
if she works at the same speed then you're you're multiplying the first time (one cut) by two because it takes two cuts to get 3 pieces
there's no 1.5 times the time, the speed is exactly the same
2x10
Whether its 15 or 20 minutes depends on whether the direction she's cutting matches the rotation of the earth, or is against it.
The extra time is akin to how it takes longer to run up the down esculator, than to run up the up one
>>26985328 (cont.)
nvm I fucked up, no bully.
>>26985354
What the fuck does 5164 mean retard
Didn't say she cut it in half. Said she cut it into pieces.
>>26985085
>All these fags thinking some how a single board cut in half once is 5 minutes per cut, when there is only a single cut being made.
Thank goodness you autists don't breed.
>>26985115
this triggered me
>>26985085
lol
>15
I assume this is common core? That one isn't even subtle.
>>26985371
Too bad. Think harder next time wagecuck. You are stupid and should feel ashamed.
>>26985386
5386 comment was too low in content because your comment was not original because you timed out because
>>26985387
>TO SAW A BOARD INTO TWO PIECES.
That doesn't look like sawing the whole board into two pieces to me anon. Consider a gas chamber.
Nobody here has taken a chemistry course kek.
>>26985388
>Telling other people not to breed.
>Can't even solve a simple problem.
>tfw these people saying it's 15 probably make more money than I do
fuck the world
She needed to pick up the pace or she would be fired
Instead, she decided that 10 minutes per cut was the only speed she was capable of. She was fired, but at least she didn't have to challenge her beliefs
>>26985085
Nigger testing to see
It's fucking twenty.
It didn't take 5 minutes to make each half, it took ten to cut it in half once.
1 cut=10 minutes
2*10=20
Fight me.
>>26985423
>THE DENSITY OF THE WOOD DOUBLES WITH EVERY CUT
>>26985424
>Being this retarded
I know this is bait and a shit post, but here's your response.
>>26985398
>tfw no mommy teacher to infallibly tell you right from wrong
>>26985085
one cut=x
x=10 then 2x=20
Is the teacher retarded?
>>26985438
realized would lose wagecuck job if she didnt take less than 10 fucking minutes to make a single full cut
>>26985477
Youre not taking into account the Earths rotation or that the saw Dulls with use.
Shit like this pisses me off, youre getting the wrong answer because you did a simple fucking calculation that takes into account NOTHING that would actually affect doing this in real life. Whats even the fucking point I swear to god.
The answer is 15
>>26985508
Just stop posting. you're not funny, bro.
>>26985404
it was a sound reasoning if we were talking about slices* rather than pieces.
>>26985534
fite me irl desu i swear to fucking god oh wait you can't youre too busy being ucking pathetic and stupid as shit
>>26985534
>>26985570
Your both faggots and need to find the nearest gas chamber.
The far more interesting question is what's the quickest way to cut it into any three pieces. I imagine something like this. Anyone have any other ideas?
>>26985387
This would be almost impossible to do with a normal hand saw. You might be able to pull it off with a coping saw, but even then you would probably need to drill holes to turn the corners.
The teacher is going full meta with these questions and teaching students that right and wrong are based on perspective, to have no faith in others or yourself being right about anything and to plan with that in mind so that you can somehow pass even if everyone involved is a total fuckup.
This is classic common core curriculum cuck calculation at its finest ladies and gentlemen truly an enlightened society at its finest!
>>26985605
probably a bit like this
>>26985155
>so answer could literally be anything
This. The second cut could be parallel to the first which would make 20. Or intersect diagonally which would involved Pythagorean theorem. It's a bad question and should feel bad.
>Answer: 15
why are you people so retarded?
>>26985744
This ^^ It's not hard the answer is literally there
The answer is 15
The question is just worded badly.
>>26985786
It isn't worded badly you're just an autist who overthinks simple questions
>>26985824
You're a retard who underthinks practical questions
>>26985786
>Taking all this time to make a diagram just to be wrong.
>Making a second cut through the same substance going the same speed, will take less time
Review your logic retard.
>>26985387
That would be three pieces though. So the answer is actually 20
>>26985837
>got the same answer but it took me 4 seconds and took you 20 minutes
>i'm the retard
alright mate
>>26985786
but the problem does not specify the direction nor the size of the cut, it's a children's problem so I assume this >>26985105 is the correct answer.
Otherwise one of those could be the right answer as well:
>>26985677
>>26985605
To cut such small pieces at the same speed, it would take less than 1/10 of the original time.
>>26985843
>Making a second cut through the same substance going the same speed
>at half the distance
>>26985786
Who the fuck buys perfectly square boards?
>>26985890
>Distance is equal to substance
It doesn't matter how long or short the item your cutting through is anon, just the thickness and type of substance. I can cut through a 5 foot steel pole or a 10 foot one, and regardless of length they will take the same time, if the thickness is the same.
>>26985843
It depends on the way you perceive the question, which doesn't state the dimensions of the board
>>26985786
did your retarded shut in ass forget that boards are normally rectangular?
>>26985786
Mate youre fucked, if you do it that way one of the cuts is against the grain and it'll be harder so it wont take 15 minutes it'll take like 17
>its 15
>no its 20
It's 30 you retards.
>>26985995
please, explain you'r logic. I'm waiting for a laugh.
>>26985958
and here we have an intelligent person posting on 4chan
>>26985995
>Shit posting so juvenile a 5 year old could do it.
Filtered.
BTW the question explicitly states "another board" and "just as fast." It's logical to assume dimensions also the same for the purpose of the question since otherwise it's fucking nonsense. Correct answer is 20 minutes but it's obviously a confusing question since even people 18+ are fucking it up.
>quality teaching
>>26986033
>Hurr durr I'm smart cos I dodged the question
Fuck off retard, you're just like the kids in school who would smart-ass every question and grew up dumb as shit
>just as fast
it would be 20 minutes because taking one of the cut boards and cutting that one in half wouldn't be "working as fast"
>>26985958
>>26986033
There's absolutely no reason to think the question is implying the square board thing. Even if it is, there's no reason to think it's implying that you need to cut it into smaller squares. Unless there's a picture that we're not seeing, that line of reasoning only makes sense when working backwards from the supposed correct answer.
>>26986032
>>26986052
1 board was 10 minutes
Another board was 20 minutes
This is assuming no fingers were lost.
>>26986058
He didn't dodge the question, he just showed how both 15 and 20 are correct answers depending on the situation
What the hell are you so mad about, anon? Do you want to talk?
>>26985935
Wait, did you interpret that as her cutting through the thickness? Its a terrible question but how and why the fuck would she do that? You're either a genius or fucking retarded.
>>26986082
"Working just as fast" doesn't imply "doing the same amount of work"
>>26986094
Stupid people annoy me and this thread is full of kids who think 20 is the right answer it just does my head in wish I could shoot up this board
holy shit this thread is pathetic
>>26986119
REEEEEEEEEEE REEeeeee EEEEEEEEE !!! how long will it take to saw the teacher's legs off? 2 cuts.. 20 minutes?
>this entire thread
so these are the people posting "smart but lazy" threads
kek
>>26986095
>Being this dumb
I've done my part in explaining, you can go somewhere else for someone to teach you.
It took Marie 10 minutes to saw a board
It took Marie 10 minutes to saw a board
It took Marie 10 minutes to saw a board
It took Marie 10 minutes to saw a board
If she works just as fast
Multiply max effort by 3
???30???
Good grades
>>26986173
don't forget the intellectual NEETs who think boards are normally squared because they never saw one in their life kek
>>26986119
10/2=5
5x3=15
super fucking basic
and WRONG
it's a word problem son
using WORDS
REAL WORLD APPLICATION
PROBLEM SOLVING
spacial intelligence
one cut takes ten minutes
two cuts take twenty minutes
very obviously
the teacher is an idiot
The question is too vague to assume some square board. and making those kinds of cuts, it's not a puzzle.
The teacher is wrong in this case and 20 is the right answer imo
the kid probably got the mark anyway after he explained how he got his answer (eg rectangular board)
I can kind of understand the teachers logic
he/she is assigning each cut piece of wood 5 minutes. so two pieces is 10 minutes, 3 pieces is 15 minutes.
>>26986224
each cut turns 1 piece into 2.
First cut makes 2 pieces.
Take 1 piece , cut it, make 2 pieces from it.
Total of 3 pieces.
45 minutes
nake one cut: 10 minutes
smoke break, drive to coffee shop, another smoke
make second cut
city worker here
>>26985164
The problem doesn't give enough info to assume this...but I think they are going by a square board. If you cut the board directly down the centre, you are left with two rectangular boards with half of one of the dimensions of the previous square board, so cutting down that dimension will take half of ten minutes, so five minutes on top of the first ten.
>>26986268
You're not taking a cut piece numbnuts
Another board implies new wood.
The total time spent using a dull blade is 30 minutes.
>>26986328
It is a new piece of wood but youre making one full cut and one half cut
>more than 0 people saying its 20
maybe r9k was making me retarded all along
>>26985085
It takes 1 minute to cut the board
>>26986328
>another board into 3 pieces
read the question , this has to be bait.
>>26985995
>>26986224
>>26986328
This
The answer is 30 fuckin minutes . 20 would be right if they're only analyzing the new board.
>>26985387
Not in half, but into two pieces, which means the cut was such that the two resultant pieces were created from one board.
What you just drew was not cutting a board into two pieces, it's cutting two sections out of a board.
>>26986353
>>26986360
This is next level retardation. Why did your wranglers let you use the computer?
1 CUT IS 10 MINUTES
2 CUT IS 20 MINUTES
10+20+0=?????
it literally says "another board" so this square board is bullshit
its 20 min u scrubs
>>26986534
Another board means a new board, the new board can be square
>>26986639
I guess I worded my post wrong. What I mean is that >>26985786 is bullshit.
>>26986669
Its not bullshit though it makes sense
>>26986679
It makes sense if you assume that the question and teacher are fucking retarded, which would be dumb if you were taking a test in real life.
>>26985319
>If it took 10 minutes to saw one board into 2 we can assume it took 5 minutes per cut(10 divided by 2 = 5).
Sawing a board into 2 pieces requires 1 cut, not 2
>>26986639
This is a board. Boards are long rectangles. They're not squares.
>>26986792
Those are planks you retard
>>26986824
Neck yourself, kid
>>26986033
>"how long will it take her to saw ANOTHER board"
ANOTHER BOARD not A PIECE you fucking idiot.
>>26986844
Synonyms just mean related not fucking exactly the same. Those arent boards theyre planks
>>26985085
so, what does the question give us?:
-10 minutes for one cut
-board is cut into 2 pieces (does not specify halved)
10min/1cut
If working just as fast (same rate), turn ANOTHER (different, not the same) board into three pieces:
-10min/1cut
-2 cuts
20 minutes to produce 2 cuts, and again it is not specified as halving. There is no reason to assume pieces are uniform in size. We have no idea in what manner this cut is being made as it is not specified, the assumption of halving is trash for all we know these niggers want it in thirds. This is a shit question, teacher should be fired.
>>26985085
um obviously it is 15
it takes 10 minutes to make 2 pieces
therefore it takes 15 minutes to make 3 pieces
fucking neet retards cant even do fractions
>>26987014
two cuts on one board to get three pieces
two cuts = 20 minutes
>r9k tries to do math
>fails
hilarious
>>26985143
Mfw need 25 seconds to cut two 2X4
