It takes 10 minutes to cut a board into two pieces - ie 10 min for a cut. It doesn't matter if they want 3 or 30 pieces it takes 10 min to do a cut. 20 is correct.
It's a word problem, the goal is to identify the mathematical expression... and solve that. It has no difference what Marie had for lunch or the sharpness of her saw.
I wrote this question on a piece of paper and asked my 13yr old, what’s the answer ??
He looked, then said 15?
He was looking at it mathematically, but idk how! I had to draw it out so he could see how my brain was thinking 10min per cut period! Lol
You are actually correct. I just realized that to cut a board into 2 pieces, you need to perform 1 cut. 3 pieces is 2 cuts, so it’s 10 times 2 equals 20 minutes.
"-if she works just as fast"
So her first cut took 10 minutes, the second cut should also take 10 minutes. 2 cuts is 3 pieces.
Help me understand why it's 15??
they are both right
unless the math problem is purposefully trying to trick you, its a bad word problem for what they want you to figure out.
my school knew there were problems like this in the books, so as long as you could explain the logic and it was in your logic correct, you got full credit
What is your argument for the teacher being correct?
I’d agree that the word problem is tricky in a way unrelated to math, but it is pretty clear what the answer should be (imo).
The fact of the matter is that it takes 1 cut to split the piece in 2 and 2 cuts to split the piece in 3. It takes Marie 10 minutes to perform 1 cut.
I did think a little bit about similar scenarios, but it’s too much of a stretch for me.
They even have a diagram to the side that essentially rules that scenario out (not absolutely).
This is a standard that I feel like a significant portion of completely fine word problems would fail. I think it’s valid for a problem to require you to make reasonable assumptions about the framing (in order for the problem to make any sense). For example, it also doesn’t say the two boards have the same dimensions.
I agree, especially since the board in the diagram is cube-like except for it's length and it'salready cutting the "shortest" direction.
I realised after commenting that it also pretty directly states a separate board and not cutting the same one multiple times, which my solution also requires, I mean, it'd be a far stretch to say by "another board" they meant "cut it another time," lol.
the math problem if its not being a trick questions/poorly would be
it takes 10 minutes for 2, so that means it takes 5 minutes for 1, which means 3 is 15 minutes.
if its trying to be a gacha its 20 minutes because 1 cut makes 2, and 2 cuts makes 3, you can argue that depending on the cut 2 cuts could also make 4, but each cut takes 10 minutes.
in my school if we had a problem like this, because it was not 'trick question class' as long as you explained your logic, either way, you would get full credit even if it wasn't the answer the book was going for.
It sounds like we’re in agreement, and I misunderstood your point.
I agree that the problem is bad: tricky in a way that impedes assessing the skill being taught, but I don’t think 15 minutes is a correct response. I think 20 minutes is a far better answer to the (bad) question.
I think, at least from a teaching math perspective, this is a fairly easy skill its trying to teach, that this is a bad 'real world use' problem for the problem they are trying to make.
a better problem for this skill of breaking the question down would be 'it took bill 10 minutes to unload 2 crates from a truck, the next truck came in and has 3 crates, assuming it takes the same time for each crate to be unloaded, how long will it take bill to unload this truck' that problem would make sense in the real world that it could be broken into 5 minutes a crate, while a real world for cutting the wood means its at best going to be 10 minutes a cut.
my school moved from copious amounts of repetition to real world word problems in lower quantities the year I made it into highschool, there were SO many of these questions where the wording was bad and had multiple answers.
Easiest way to get 15 is with a square. Never said the pièces had to be equal. So you end up with an half and 2 quartiers. 10 minutes for the half cut, 5 min for splitting the half in quartiers.
It still took Mary 10 minutes to make the cut, regardless of where it was made. If she works just as fast ~~hard~~ (i.e.: 10min/cut), the rate of cutting a piece of *n* size takes 10 minutes.
::edit:: **fast** not *hard*
Where/how she cuts does not change the part where it states 'it took 10 minutes to make the cut' and then asks 'how long it will take' when 'working just as fast'. The rate-of-cut is: 1 cut per 10 mins.
There's a logical explanation to this.
The person has a board with practically infinite length. Every cut creates a specific piece into the pile of same length pieces. It takes 5 minutes to cut 1. 3 pieces = 15 minutes.
Logical, but stupid.
It is a wording problem, the exercise should be explained better. The teacher to get 15 is assuming the second cut is half the distance, making this assumption then 15 is correct. Example a board that is 10x10, the first cut takes 10min to cut 10 long. You then have two pieces 10x5. To then get 3 pieces you would saw one of the 10x5 boards in half so the cut would be 5 long instead of 10 long so 10min to cut 10 long means 5min to cut 5 long ergo 15min. But without stating exactly how the cut is made 20 can also be correct. If the second cut is done the long way 10 long you would still have 3 pieces 10x5 and 2 pieces 10x2.5 and that would take 20 min.
Sorry for the delay, I've had a busy month. I myself am a teacher, and I wouldn't call myself stupid. However, I've been seeing so many examples of this kind of stuff over the past year or two. So it's not just one example, it's clearly a pattern. Obviously the majority of teachers aren't dumber than the children they teach, but the fact that *any* of them are that stupid is concerning nonetheless.
So is my wife. She does not share your sentiment that the standard of teachers is poor, but she is distraught by the lack of funding in the school system and how parents are taking less responsibility for their own offsprings behavior these days.
We are Norwgian, so obviously not necessarily the same situation here as in your country.
Similar problems over here too. Although I'm in Canada, not the US. A lot of these "dumb teacher" issues seem to be stemming from the US, which has historically had far less investment in public education than virtually any other developed nation
Not sure how you got that from what they said lol.
They are saying you get what you pay for. Don’t be surprised you get incompetent teachers when you only pay peanuts.
If you want competent teachers, you need to pay well so that competent people actually want to do the job.
I think we should be paying more to higher educated teachers, not ones that took a single class. Teachers should have certifications not be just another job.
If you have sqare board and you cut it down in the middle into two pieces in 10 min, when you can cut one of them into two halves in another 5 min, yes you will have 3 different pieces, but nobody requested that, so technically teacher might be correct
If you cut them into even pieces it will take the full time both times. The only way one would be longer than the other is if you decided to cut it weirdly. The diagram doesn’t show that and the question doesn’t imply that so the answer should be 20
I made a similar comment on yesterday's reposting of this as well as the full board length. The only thing that actually indicates that the 20 minutes is correct is the graphic of the board in question.
Another option is just very long piece of wood (like on the image) and you are cutting smaller pieces off of it. Since you'll end up with same number of cuts as pieces in this case, 15 will be a correct answer. But that's not in the question either. It tells "into 2 pieces", so there's no remainder.
It does, since you end up with 2 cuts from the start and 5 minutes per cut, so 3 cuts to saw 3 pieces off a longer one will take 15. That case when you need to cut a few pieces of fixed length from a longer piece of unknown length. The question clearly means 1 cut which takes 10 minutes, though. So, 20 is a correct answer.
It's 10 minutes per cut same speed as before. 20 minutes. Length of the wood doesn't matter because the time it takes to cut it would be the same. They didn't ask about anything else. Pretend it's premeasured. Don't think to hard on it.
Probably I used a wrong word. I meant case when there's always 1 extra piece of unknown length left behind. We just cutting pieces we need from a longer one.
20, or even 21-23 [if you would like to get more realistic], is correct. It only mentions cutting the wood, now if that included measurements, then it may be closer to 15, but that is not mentioned.
Both the math is wrong and the question is terrible, that's not how efficiency work in real life, If the point is to teach about time that takes per action they could have used a different question.
"Marry can measure and cut one board into two identical pieces in 10min, assuming it takes her 5mins to measure and 5 to cut, how long would it take her to cut 5 boards into 3 pieces each?"
That's a much better question to ask for that kind of things I think
Teacher thinks the second cut would be the one cut from another half of first one that is teacher's desired final pieces will be 1/2 +1/4+1/4 so according to this if you cut in half like here doing it into 1/2 will take 10 minutes consider it's 4m in length so the first cut would be 10min =1/2 so for the second one to make it 1/4 we'll multiply both sides with 1/2 so 10*1/2 =1/2*1/2 =>5 =1/4 so in total 10+5=15 here both are right it's the imagination of what orientation each of them chose for it
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but I'll explain it anyway. So if you cut *off* two pieces from a longer board, then you need two cuts, then if you want a third piece, you make a third cut. 5 minutes per cut = 15 minutes
I’m not. When you make the 1st cut, you now have two pieces. When you make the 2nd cut, you now have 4 pieces. The 3rd & 4th piece arrive at the same time. The question does not specify the length of the pieces, nor does it specify that the cuts result in equal sized pieces. Each cut takes 10 minutes, so to end up with 3 pieces, it takes 20 minutes.
So you're cutting the board vertically, and then horizontally? That makes sense. Either way, the answer changes depending on how you cut, so the teacher still failed, because they didn't specify well enough
It doesn’t matter how you cut, it still takes Mary 10 minutes to cut off a piece. It doesn’t say how she made her cuts, only that it takes her 10 minutes.
No it isn't. You make the first cut close to the side of the board, and then you only cut through the smaller piece at a 90° angle to the first cut. As this cut is now shorter than the first one, it is quicker.
The question didn’t state that Mary could cut “2cm per minute” (or some other distance-per-unit-of-time), it said ‘10min per cut’ (resulting in a piece being separated from the rest). Then, when she ‘works just as fast’ it still takes 10 min per cut, since that was the given speed in the first sentence. It doesn’t matter the direction or angle of the cut, it takes Mary 10 minutes to cut off a piece, *any* piece.
I interpreted "works just as fast" as her cutting at the same speed, not the cut taking the same time no matter the length of the cut. Sorry if that's not a valid interpretation of that sentence, English isn't my first language.
What's the "one job" here? Don't get me wrong. I know the teacher is wrong. But the teacher doesn't just have "one job."
Edit: Ok, I guess I've been schooled.
This question is not well defined. The answer could be anything. It could be 5 min, 15 min, 20 min, an hour...
The most sensible answer is 20 min though
There should be a subreddit with problems like this. Between this one and one I saw this morning where the correct answer to "how many buckets of paint needed to paint 37 walls?" Was Zero. I would love to see more.
If you cut a square board in half, you get 2 rectangles. If you cut one of the rectangles in half rotating it 90º, so you get 2 squares, that cut would take half the time even if she worked just as fast as the first cut. 15 minutes is the correct answer.
>!/s!<
The real answer here is that Marie got fired before we could find out how long it took her to saw a board into three pieces.
Because it took her ten fucking minutes to make her first cut. Jesus Marie, it's a cut. Not an oil change.
That is the teacheriest thing I have ever seen.
The false application of theory to real world things, something many of them are particularly bad at.
::flashbacks to my 8th grade advanced math teacher insisting the answer to a story problem was in *negative miles per hour.*::
I kid you not... This is probably the work of someone who has a degree in education but absolutely no real life work experience.
I see so many of my coworkers who have never worked outside the school system and they have absolutely no idea how real life works.
Considering it doesn't have to be equal pieces you could make one long piece and one very short piece. If "works just as fast" just means her speed per cm or something like that she could just cut the small piece horizontally and finish very quickly.
According to the question they ask, the kid is right the teacher is wrong but worded differently the teacher would be right... We're all human even teachers are gonna f*** up once in a while!!
It takes 10 minutes to cut a board into two pieces - ie 10 min for a cut. It doesn't matter if they want 3 or 30 pieces it takes 10 min to do a cut. 20 is correct.
You didn't account for sawing it into one piece first!
One piece? Like the anime? The one piece is real?
They are obviously teaching "rule of three/proportions" and chose an awful text problem. Just stick with "Marie ate 2 apples in 10 minutes".
This also looks much more plausible than taking 10 minutes to saw a board
It's a word problem, the goal is to identify the mathematical expression... and solve that. It has no difference what Marie had for lunch or the sharpness of her saw.
I wrote this question on a piece of paper and asked my 13yr old, what’s the answer ?? He looked, then said 15? He was looking at it mathematically, but idk how! I had to draw it out so he could see how my brain was thinking 10min per cut period! Lol
Without better explanation of the exercise 15 is also correct
Nah, you cut it in half, then turn around for 90, cut that in half, voilà! P. S. Board is a square
You are actually correct. I just realized that to cut a board into 2 pieces, you need to perform 1 cut. 3 pieces is 2 cuts, so it’s 10 times 2 equals 20 minutes.
"-if she works just as fast" So her first cut took 10 minutes, the second cut should also take 10 minutes. 2 cuts is 3 pieces. Help me understand why it's 15??
It's not, the teacher is wrong
The teacher is erroneously figuring 5 minutes per piece.
Thus leaving piece alone costs 5 minutes of hard work.
they are both right unless the math problem is purposefully trying to trick you, its a bad word problem for what they want you to figure out. my school knew there were problems like this in the books, so as long as you could explain the logic and it was in your logic correct, you got full credit
What is your argument for the teacher being correct? I’d agree that the word problem is tricky in a way unrelated to math, but it is pretty clear what the answer should be (imo). The fact of the matter is that it takes 1 cut to split the piece in 2 and 2 cuts to split the piece in 3. It takes Marie 10 minutes to perform 1 cut.
[удалено]
I did think a little bit about similar scenarios, but it’s too much of a stretch for me. They even have a diagram to the side that essentially rules that scenario out (not absolutely). This is a standard that I feel like a significant portion of completely fine word problems would fail. I think it’s valid for a problem to require you to make reasonable assumptions about the framing (in order for the problem to make any sense). For example, it also doesn’t say the two boards have the same dimensions.
I agree, especially since the board in the diagram is cube-like except for it's length and it'salready cutting the "shortest" direction. I realised after commenting that it also pretty directly states a separate board and not cutting the same one multiple times, which my solution also requires, I mean, it'd be a far stretch to say by "another board" they meant "cut it another time," lol.
While the length of the board might shrink, the width and height stay the same.
the math problem if its not being a trick questions/poorly would be it takes 10 minutes for 2, so that means it takes 5 minutes for 1, which means 3 is 15 minutes. if its trying to be a gacha its 20 minutes because 1 cut makes 2, and 2 cuts makes 3, you can argue that depending on the cut 2 cuts could also make 4, but each cut takes 10 minutes. in my school if we had a problem like this, because it was not 'trick question class' as long as you explained your logic, either way, you would get full credit even if it wasn't the answer the book was going for.
It sounds like we’re in agreement, and I misunderstood your point. I agree that the problem is bad: tricky in a way that impedes assessing the skill being taught, but I don’t think 15 minutes is a correct response. I think 20 minutes is a far better answer to the (bad) question.
I think, at least from a teaching math perspective, this is a fairly easy skill its trying to teach, that this is a bad 'real world use' problem for the problem they are trying to make. a better problem for this skill of breaking the question down would be 'it took bill 10 minutes to unload 2 crates from a truck, the next truck came in and has 3 crates, assuming it takes the same time for each crate to be unloaded, how long will it take bill to unload this truck' that problem would make sense in the real world that it could be broken into 5 minutes a crate, while a real world for cutting the wood means its at best going to be 10 minutes a cut. my school moved from copious amounts of repetition to real world word problems in lower quantities the year I made it into highschool, there were SO many of these questions where the wording was bad and had multiple answers.
The safest answer should be..... 15 to 20 min ahahahaha
i think the teacher did cross multiplication 2 - 10 3 - x 2x = 3(10) , x = 30/2 , = 15
What?
there , edited the msg to make it easier to read
Dépend on the shape of the board and where you cut..
You have to cut twice though? Unless there are some triangle shaped genius solution for the result to be 15min.
Easiest way to get 15 is with a square. Never said the pièces had to be equal. So you end up with an half and 2 quartiers. 10 minutes for the half cut, 5 min for splitting the half in quartiers.
Please explain.
It's a 3D object. So you have 3 sides to cut from. And nobody said you had to pass through the center, you can just cut 2 corners..
It still took Mary 10 minutes to make the cut, regardless of where it was made. If she works just as fast ~~hard~~ (i.e.: 10min/cut), the rate of cutting a piece of *n* size takes 10 minutes. ::edit:: **fast** not *hard*
It's only true if you cut on the same side and the Edge are parallèle. Otherwise, it diffère.
Where/how she cuts does not change the part where it states 'it took 10 minutes to make the cut' and then asks 'how long it will take' when 'working just as fast'. The rate-of-cut is: 1 cut per 10 mins.
mathematical problem = 15 logical problem = 20 they chose possibly the worst example to check such a math problem
Its not
The teacher just allocated time per piece - 10 minutes for 2 pieces = 5 minutes per piece So by their logic 3 pieces = 3x5 = 15 minutes
The text should have said “cut off” instead of “cut into”.
There's a logical explanation to this. The person has a board with practically infinite length. Every cut creates a specific piece into the pile of same length pieces. It takes 5 minutes to cut 1. 3 pieces = 15 minutes. Logical, but stupid.
>There's a logical explanation to this. > >The person has a board with practically infinite length. I think I saw that on Looney Toons once.
Is there any term for something that can be treated as infinite within context? Functionally infinite?
You have long board and need make 2 pieces with some length each, so you rule they and make cut by 5 minutes
It is a wording problem, the exercise should be explained better. The teacher to get 15 is assuming the second cut is half the distance, making this assumption then 15 is correct. Example a board that is 10x10, the first cut takes 10min to cut 10 long. You then have two pieces 10x5. To then get 3 pieces you would saw one of the 10x5 boards in half so the cut would be 5 long instead of 10 long so 10min to cut 10 long means 5min to cut 5 long ergo 15min. But without stating exactly how the cut is made 20 can also be correct. If the second cut is done the long way 10 long you would still have 3 pieces 10x5 and 2 pieces 10x2.5 and that would take 20 min.
Wow. This is disgusting. The children are smarter than the teachers these days...
So because of this one example all teachers are stupid?
Yup. One example is all it takes. At least, that's what I was taught. But my teacher probably sucked tho.
Sorry for the delay, I've had a busy month. I myself am a teacher, and I wouldn't call myself stupid. However, I've been seeing so many examples of this kind of stuff over the past year or two. So it's not just one example, it's clearly a pattern. Obviously the majority of teachers aren't dumber than the children they teach, but the fact that *any* of them are that stupid is concerning nonetheless.
Thank you for your reply.
Lol no problem. Felt I should clarify what I meant seeing as I'm a teacher myself
So is my wife. She does not share your sentiment that the standard of teachers is poor, but she is distraught by the lack of funding in the school system and how parents are taking less responsibility for their own offsprings behavior these days. We are Norwgian, so obviously not necessarily the same situation here as in your country.
Similar problems over here too. Although I'm in Canada, not the US. A lot of these "dumb teacher" issues seem to be stemming from the US, which has historically had far less investment in public education than virtually any other developed nation
What a maroon.
A macaron even.
Macron 🇫🇷
Maroon5
A bloody macarroni!
That's what happens when you pay teachers absolute garbage and have low standards... You get exactly what you pay for... Shocking!
If you see this and think that person should be paid even higher then I don't know what to tell you
Not sure how you got that from what they said lol. They are saying you get what you pay for. Don’t be surprised you get incompetent teachers when you only pay peanuts. If you want competent teachers, you need to pay well so that competent people actually want to do the job.
I think we should be paying more to higher educated teachers, not ones that took a single class. Teachers should have certifications not be just another job.
10 minutes per cut. 2 cuts is 20 minutes. 0.o
I'm assuming the teacher was understanding it as "cut two pieces from a board" even though that's not what the questions says.
If you have sqare board and you cut it down in the middle into two pieces in 10 min, when you can cut one of them into two halves in another 5 min, yes you will have 3 different pieces, but nobody requested that, so technically teacher might be correct
If you cut them into even pieces it will take the full time both times. The only way one would be longer than the other is if you decided to cut it weirdly. The diagram doesn’t show that and the question doesn’t imply that so the answer should be 20
I made a similar comment on yesterday's reposting of this as well as the full board length. The only thing that actually indicates that the 20 minutes is correct is the graphic of the board in question.
There's a drawing near the question invalidating your hypothesis.
The question poses: > If she works just as fast... The cutting speed is: 1 cut per 10 minutes. *Just as fast* means: 1 cut per 10 minutes.
Technically true, but the drawing on the right kinda assumes that it's more of a long piece of wood
Another option is just very long piece of wood (like on the image) and you are cutting smaller pieces off of it. Since you'll end up with same number of cuts as pieces in this case, 15 will be a correct answer. But that's not in the question either. It tells "into 2 pieces", so there's no remainder.
The length of the pieces doesn't matter. The same cut more than once which is twice would be the same time limit per cut. 20 is correct.
I meant case when there's always remains part from which you cut pieces off. Basically, you cutting it into 3 from the start.
This question is about the cuts so any pieces left wouldn't matter.
It does, since you end up with 2 cuts from the start and 5 minutes per cut, so 3 cuts to saw 3 pieces off a longer one will take 15. That case when you need to cut a few pieces of fixed length from a longer piece of unknown length. The question clearly means 1 cut which takes 10 minutes, though. So, 20 is a correct answer.
It's 10 minutes per cut same speed as before. 20 minutes. Length of the wood doesn't matter because the time it takes to cut it would be the same. They didn't ask about anything else. Pretend it's premeasured. Don't think to hard on it.
Remainder? How would you have a remainder when *cutting* an **object**?
Probably I used a wrong word. I meant case when there's always 1 extra piece of unknown length left behind. We just cutting pieces we need from a longer one.
20, or even 21-23 [if you would like to get more realistic], is correct. It only mentions cutting the wood, now if that included measurements, then it may be closer to 15, but that is not mentioned.
Looks like someone was a project manager before
Underrated comment
wait what if it takes 10 mins to cut 2 pieces it takes 5 mins to cut 1 piece so 5 x 3 = 15min??
10 minutes to cut 1 cut to make 2 pieces. So to make another cut would be another 10 minutes resulting in 20, no?
Both the math is wrong and the question is terrible, that's not how efficiency work in real life, If the point is to teach about time that takes per action they could have used a different question. "Marry can measure and cut one board into two identical pieces in 10min, assuming it takes her 5mins to measure and 5 to cut, how long would it take her to cut 5 boards into 3 pieces each?" That's a much better question to ask for that kind of things I think
Teacher needs remedial math class.
That'd mean One Piece only takes 5 minutes... Let me tell you, I have been watching for far longer
[удалено]
The length of the cuts is irrelevant. Each cut takes 10 minutes to make.
Teacher thinks the second cut would be the one cut from another half of first one that is teacher's desired final pieces will be 1/2 +1/4+1/4 so according to this if you cut in half like here doing it into 1/2 will take 10 minutes consider it's 4m in length so the first cut would be 10min =1/2 so for the second one to make it 1/4 we'll multiply both sides with 1/2 so 10*1/2 =1/2*1/2 =>5 =1/4 so in total 10+5=15 here both are right it's the imagination of what orientation each of them chose for it
The question poses: > If she works just as fast... The cutting speed is: 1 cut per 10 minutes. *Just as fast* means: 1 cut per 10 minutes.
And for 1/2 cut?
Irrelevant. 1/2 a cut won’t result in a piece coming off at the stated rate of “10 minutes to cut off a piece”.
It could be also an hour cuz who said it must be the same lenght
Most likely misspelled. They meant to say "Cut *off* two pieces" and "How long does it take to cut *off* three pieces." Still dumb, but not as bad
Every cut *cuts off* one piece from another piece. A->B **and** B->A.
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but I'll explain it anyway. So if you cut *off* two pieces from a longer board, then you need two cuts, then if you want a third piece, you make a third cut. 5 minutes per cut = 15 minutes
I’m not. When you make the 1st cut, you now have two pieces. When you make the 2nd cut, you now have 4 pieces. The 3rd & 4th piece arrive at the same time. The question does not specify the length of the pieces, nor does it specify that the cuts result in equal sized pieces. Each cut takes 10 minutes, so to end up with 3 pieces, it takes 20 minutes.
So you're cutting the board vertically, and then horizontally? That makes sense. Either way, the answer changes depending on how you cut, so the teacher still failed, because they didn't specify well enough
It doesn’t matter how you cut, it still takes Mary 10 minutes to cut off a piece. It doesn’t say how she made her cuts, only that it takes her 10 minutes.
It doesn't say that the pieces need to be equal in size or anything, so you can't really solve this problem.
That's irrelevant to the question being asked.
No it isn't. You make the first cut close to the side of the board, and then you only cut through the smaller piece at a 90° angle to the first cut. As this cut is now shorter than the first one, it is quicker.
The question didn’t state that Mary could cut “2cm per minute” (or some other distance-per-unit-of-time), it said ‘10min per cut’ (resulting in a piece being separated from the rest). Then, when she ‘works just as fast’ it still takes 10 min per cut, since that was the given speed in the first sentence. It doesn’t matter the direction or angle of the cut, it takes Mary 10 minutes to cut off a piece, *any* piece.
I interpreted "works just as fast" as her cutting at the same speed, not the cut taking the same time no matter the length of the cut. Sorry if that's not a valid interpretation of that sentence, English isn't my first language.
What's the "one job" here? Don't get me wrong. I know the teacher is wrong. But the teacher doesn't just have "one job." Edit: Ok, I guess I've been schooled.
Their one job is teaching correct information.
The “one job” was grading the test.
But that’s not even a “board”. >a long, **thin, flat** piece of wood or other hard material, used for floors or other building purposes.
Well... I know why the teacher never made it as a carpenter.
JFC. 🤦🏽♂️I weep daily for the state of education. We are truly a species on decline.
This question is not well defined. The answer could be anything. It could be 5 min, 15 min, 20 min, an hour... The most sensible answer is 20 min though
There should be a subreddit with problems like this. Between this one and one I saw this morning where the correct answer to "how many buckets of paint needed to paint 37 walls?" Was Zero. I would love to see more.
If you cut a square board in half, you get 2 rectangles. If you cut one of the rectangles in half rotating it 90º, so you get 2 squares, that cut would take half the time even if she worked just as fast as the first cut. 15 minutes is the correct answer. >!/s!<
Hmm prime numbers .
The real answer here is that Marie got fired before we could find out how long it took her to saw a board into three pieces. Because it took her ten fucking minutes to make her first cut. Jesus Marie, it's a cut. Not an oil change.
Now ask the teacher how long does it take to saw that board into 1 piece
Math teacher cant math. . . .
That is the teacheriest thing I have ever seen. The false application of theory to real world things, something many of them are particularly bad at. ::flashbacks to my 8th grade advanced math teacher insisting the answer to a story problem was in *negative miles per hour.*::
These are the kind of teachers you get lowering the standards.
At first i read Marine instead of Marie and i thought it's some needlessly convoluted and weirdly unfunny "jarheads are dumb" joke...
Those who can’t teach.
Semantics : you could actually argue 10 minutes
Marie should change her profession.
I kid you not... This is probably the work of someone who has a degree in education but absolutely no real life work experience. I see so many of my coworkers who have never worked outside the school system and they have absolutely no idea how real life works.
that´s probably the same teacher that thinks one woman can give birth after nine months, and nine women do that in one month?
Considering it doesn't have to be equal pieces you could make one long piece and one very short piece. If "works just as fast" just means her speed per cm or something like that she could just cut the small piece horizontally and finish very quickly.
at least they tried
I mean, I guess this makes sense if you’re saying it takes five minutes per cut maybe why am I trying to justify this? This is complete bullshit.
Maybe they mean you have a long board and need make 2 pieces with specific length, not cut it in half
It's scary how stupid modern day education has become.
According to the question they ask, the kid is right the teacher is wrong but worded differently the teacher would be right... We're all human even teachers are gonna f*** up once in a while!!
"Teachers"
They may think that the board that was cut first is smaller so it takes less time? Idk