Submitted by: Unknown
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Popular FAIL Videos
-
Recent Failures in Communications
veryspookymulder on Failbook: Well That’s… yue on After 12: How to Open a Wine B… yue on After 12: How to Open a Wine B… veryspookymulder on Engrish Funny: Coke-a-Doo… yue on Music FAILS: Everyone Knows Th… yue on Bros: Different Culture, Same… dfck on FAIL Nation: French FAIL yue on Poorly Dressed: Assemble, BUT … Dr Hugh on Failbook: Also the Reason Why … Natasha on Engrish Funny: Hupu Lupu an Tu… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Teachers have a way of always getting their way, I’ll bet the grade stands as it is.
I wouldn’t take that bet.
Were you the teacher in question?
You’re avatar is a bird. :0
Grammar fail.
He/She corrected it him/her self. Give him/her a break.
Shhh!
This thing has already passed 400 comments; we could have a world record here if the flaming continues.
/me equips flamethrower
I love the smell of flaming in the morning!
Those of you that take 20 minutes to make two cuts are retards. Usually, people do things QUICKER the MORE they DO IT. Now go cut off your reproductive organs… you FAILURES.
What part of “if she works just as fast” is too difficult for you to understand? We’re here to help.
It took Marie 10 minute to cut a sandwich into 2 pieces. If she works just as fast, how long will it take her to cut another sandwich into 3 pieces?
I am comment no 1400 in yo
then why would u tell everyone to shhh?
Bah! It’s still got a long way to go to match some of the religious fails.
the who DID start the flame war.. ? c’:
spelling fail!
No, he definitely meant that “The Who” started the flame war.
spelling fail
double post
My bad!
you have to change the comment to do a double post, so im kwite shur it wuz on purpus
Gary Bussey?
Isn’t it skeith, not shiek?
Or a beak!
Freaking grammar nazi win?
Nope, they always fail.
Where is the grammar fail?
You are avatar is a bird? Nope, not right grammar.
‘Nope, not the correct grammar.’
Numbnuts.
i spoked me grammars goodly
Methinks thou dost misseth the joke-eth.
Idiot-eth.
jerk
She spelled “peices” wrong, moron!!
Actually, you spelled “pieces” wrong, moron!!
The premise of this fail is that she spelled it wrong, it’s a grammer fail.
you spelled grammar wrong.
I think everyone’s spelling things wrong on purpose, actually.
you meene porpuse
beliefe you mite meen porpoise
I thought the premise of the fail was that 20 mins is the correct answer.
Actually, she corrected a correct answer. That is the fail.
this whole thing abot speeling and gramer r can has bee confoozelling!
Ummm, this whole list of comments is an Epic Fail.
The point is, is that if it takes 10 minutes to make one cut into two peices – then to make three peices on a fresh board, it would take two cuts: and it takes this person 10 minutes to make one cut. Which means the answer is in fact 20 mins.
The teacher is wrong. All you could come up with was a spelling mistake. Your all retarded. Honestly.
Fail.
you said “peice”…haha…(i assume you didn’t mean “Petroleum Institute for Continuing Education”)
you’re grammer are bad lol
You fail it, sir
grimfandango: That’s why we say Beiber, not Bieber D:
This is why I say Beaver.
ACtually, you fail. “Your” should be “You’re”. Honestly.
You’re the idiot, he purposely used bad grammar in that sentence for comedic effect. You’re going to complain about the misuse of the word “you’re” but not notice the “grammar are bad?”
Christ these lines are confusing, I thought you had replied to nug nug, not Dr Sav, I retract my statement.
wow, i was about to argue with you, but then i realized that i misread the question. wow. that teacher fails.
haha, i didnt even notice the spelling mistake
All i noticed was the math calculations that were wrong!!!
But 2 in 1 fails….not bad
its YOU’RE.
um… it’s “it’s”
/like
and you don’t know the difference between you’re and your
Have you heard? The bird is the word.
*Your avatar is a bird. :O
your avatar looks like the gift blanket you get after donating money to an indian tribe….hahaha
oh damnit /\
lol, epic fail xD
failure-to-see-intentional-joke fail. /\
Failure-to-realize-the-joke-may-not-have-been-intentional…
fail.
fail
indeed.
I will attack the spoonmister at dawn. Be ready
Failure-to-notice-the-”oh damnit”-that-implies-the-supposed-joke-wasn’t-really-all-that-intentional fail.
There is no sandwich that requires wood, so the problem is invalid, she should just go back to the kitchen.
why is the instructor female?
handwriting and color…
SeekAndDestroy is also female, with her pink avi.
No, it’s random, and you know it.
Yes.
SeekAndDestroy.\m/, joke fail.
WINNNNN
This was somewhat funny and playfully ironic about, oh…three years ago. Now it’s cliche and annoying.
I isa carrpentter and grammer ecxspurt and u is rong..
you’re spelling everything wrong on purpose, right?
Avis’s avatar is a bird. This thread is invalid.
What does my avatar have to do with the fail at hand?
Grammer fail by “I Don’t Make The Rules” also:
Avis’ avatar is a bird. This thread is invalid.
It is just Avis’ not Avis’s
GRAMMER FAIL.
LOL.
*Grammar
There’s no-one quite like grammar….
also Avis’ would only work if there was more than one Avis.
Scratch that only
no hyphen is needed in “no one”. it is two separate words.
*THEY ARE two separate words. lol this is gonna go on forever.
IRONY… YOU HAZ IT!!
SPELLING FAIL
Getting LOLspeak fail.
I don`t get the problem.
Actually “Avis’s” is just fine. For singular possessive, it is always okay to put ‘s. For plural possessive it is s’ and it is acceptable to use s’ if a singular noun ends with an s and is two or more syllables. Punctuation fail on you, Goldeagle.
The apostrophe character is ‘ not `. The latter is called a “grave accent” or, more popularly, “back-tick.” Punctuation fail on you, Heidi.
Oh, WOW. Failblog FAIL — it turned ‘ into a backtick. Most uncool. You Failblog programmers *DO* realize that you can use &# to hex-escape characters to avoid SQL injection attacks, right?
I take my FAIL against Heidi back completely. It looks like she typed it right.
*Correctly. “Typed” is a verb and therefore needs an adverb to describe it.
Munch wrote it right. “Right” can be used as an adverb meaning “correctly”.
Those dictionaries which list “right” as an adverb are only assisting in the decline of the English language. It’s like when they started accepting the use of “instantaneous” as a synonym for “instant”; I understand that languages evolve, and that dictionaries evolve to follow them, but there should be some control over the rate at which dictionaries add new definitions to longstanding words due to misuse by ignorant doofuses — the dictionary publishers, being profit-oriented corporations, now put the self-serving appearance of being up-to-date, responsive, and hip ahead of their responsibility to define the language. Clearly, there should be a standard for whether a contemporary “repurposing” of an existing word should be formalized into a dictionary, and obviously that standard should be what I think. Yeah!
i hate english people for always correcting others like that
we don’t do that in french…
Well of course not. If you did that there might be a fight; and then you’d have to surrender.
Easier just to keep quiet in the first place.
@ertdfg, seriously dude, we had a grandpa’ as a general and excuse me but when YOU (english people I mean) start fighting it turns to a bloody week.
And I totally agree with omgwtfbbq, and I just want to say that french language is WAY more difficult than english one.
I didn’t see any mention in Cletis’ comment about being English himself. What would being English have to do with correcting people on their use of the English language? It’s the national language in a lot of countries.
But I do agree it’s unecessary. “Right” makes perfect sense as a synonym for “correctly” and has for countless years, before any of us were born. Cletis’ comment does give a sense of “in the good ol’ days we did it this way” which is stupid considering he wasn’t alive himself in the days when “right” was used differently.
i didn’t mean english as ‘someone from England’ but as ‘someone who speak english’
Lookit, I’m part French myself in heritage, but I was born American and have been my whole life. I can’t even SPEAK French correctly, let alone grasp the entirety of the vocabulary and usage. So yes, French is a difficult language. But you know what? So is Japanese, and–HEY!–so is the American version of English. Can we not turn this into a nationality flame war for God’s sake?
In the sense of correction, right is probably derived from righteous.
Isn’t “right” an adverb in the prefix “right honourable”? If so, it is hardly a “repurposing” of the word. In fact, I believe this usage is actually quite old.
who gives a S**T the way its spelled????????? this is the internet who cares….
I do.
THANK YOU. i mean seriously people, all you do is freaking correct each others grammar -.- it’s REALLY GAY.
Actually, use of “right” as an adverb dates back to Middle English. Nice try, though.
Hence the spelling of “honourable”. That’s what I said.
Or better use mysql_real_escape_string
Avis’s is the preferred usage, actually.
Preferred but not correct.
Why do so many people get this wrong? Think about it for a darned minute and you could figure it out.
Both in speech and in writing, you need that final s for you to make any stinking sense. Think on it. (Tip for the challenged: Consider “Have you seen Beavis’s hat?” versus “Have you seen Beavis’ hat?” and then stab your eyes out if you think they’re the same.)
Next thing you know, the plural of “bus” will be “bus.” You can’t just kind of mentally think ‘possession’ and hope your friends get it, which is the amazing stupidity of anyone who thinks you can just drop the final ‘s.’ Preferred but not correct my butt.
This is correct.
Is “Think on it.” correct?
I have no idea what the “bus” bit is about. The plural of bus is buses. What does that have to do with apostrophes?
This is where the wannabe grammar Nazi didn’t finish correctly or is wrong. Your example suggests that the plural of Bus is Bus’s which is incorrect.
‘s is for possessive. So a Noun or object can have a ‘s but it’s not for the plural.
Bus
Busses(or Buses) = Plural [Both are correct]
Bus’s = possessive
The Busses are in the Bus Barn.
The Bus’s Engine is in the Front.
Now, Go baK 2 skul and lern yu sum Enrish!
I have seen it written “Buses’s” For the Plural possessive. “The Busses’s wheels have all been maintained”. This is Technically wrong.
Heidi is correct though. Plural Possessive’s ending in an S can drop the S from the ‘s if the plural has a possession: “The Busses’ wheels”
Saying that All of the Busses. Each possess their own wheels and those wheels have been serviced/maintained.
So Avis, being a Noun and proper name is allowed to have a ‘s to make is a possessive. “Avis’s Avatar”. But the Plural of a noun is not ‘s. “There are two Avis’s” Would be incorrect usage of the ‘s.
I believe that the correct Plural for Avis would thus be “Avises”. Thus: “There are two Avises online”
and the plural possessive might be: “The Avises’ accounts have different users”. Suggesting 2 accounts being owned by 2 or more people using “Avis” as their handle.
Example reading:
http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural
I hope that this helps “Points Giver” and other users who seem to lack a proper grasp on the English mechanics.
You can just drop the s on a possessive plural because… you said “Think on it”
Busses’s (Bus-es-s): Sounds like you have a stutter.
Like the people who cant say/spell Banana and Cinnamon correctly.
“Saying that All of the Busses. Each possess their own wheels and those wheels have been serviced/maintained.”
Each possessES ITS (note possessive without apostrophe) own wheels…Each is singular.
“Like the people who cant say/spell Banana and Cinnamon correctly.”
Can’t. (“Cant or canting may refer to: Empty, uncritical thought or talk” or cant is jargon of a specific group…)
You’re one of the users who lack a proper grasp on the English mechanics, correct? (And who wants to grasp an English mechanic anyway?)
typing errors do not indicate a lack of proper grasp on the MECHANICS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
Saying “their” instead of “its” is not a typo. The capital “W” in the middle of a sentence was also incorrect.
Prepare to be schooled:
Lets look at the sentence you decided to attack.
“Like the people who cant say/spell Banana and Cinnamon correctly.”
You decided to view it as “cant” as in error can’t or Can not.
Perhaps another person viewed it as: “Like the people who cant say/spell Banana and Cinnamon correctly.”
One of the uses of ‘cant’ is to “talk”. So by reading my sentence as using talk or to speak we read: “Like the people who speak (say/spell) Banana and Cinnamon correctly” Perhaps a sarcastic jest toward those who cannot talk/say/CANT the words of their own language with proper diction. Notice that say/spell are descriptors to the previous word ‘cant’? Perhaps you should have hounded me for not putting the descriptors within brackets or parentheses.
Seeing my description, Which do you assume I used…
While yes, I was at work and so bored in a meeting that I forgot a comma after ‘busses’ and before ‘Each’… Not a period. Please correct me for the correct errors.
I’ll admit that, but verily it does not reflect my grasp of the language. It does show a lack of proper technical writing Nazism. 
To talk about a possession:
“Each person possesses the abilities…”
“Children possess the abilities”
“All people (individually) possess the ability/abilities…”
“Each (individually) possess the abilities required…”
“Each Child possesses the ability to learn…”
I agree that ‘Each’ is singular, but that singularity does NOT change the use of whether they possess or possesses within its own rule. There are other rules which govern this usage.
These examples are each correct depending on what the subject is, how it is being reflected upon and what the subject of possession is in relation.
So by Saying “All of the busses, each possess…”
Look at my statement correctly… they each (individually) possess their wheels. I used the correct form of Possess in that possession buddy.
If you are going to Nazi or Troll, at least be good at it.
The calumny is false and invalid!
As for the use of ‘ITS’. My sentence using ‘their own’ and ‘ITS’ could be used interchangeably with no effect.
Go ahead and grab your dictionary… I know you are itching to know what that word means.
[To the individual below stating language is irrelevant]
If you are not part of the Fix, then you are a part of the problem. Language fails and the etymology of the language changes, as each generation passes. If the change is not based on the derivation of the word, and has no bearing on the true roots. Therefore, it’s incorrect usage should be corrected before children grow up ignorant.
“Therefore, its incorrect usage…”
FAIL
1am… I truly should not type in meetings and late at night. I am NOT an English major and I am Human. For to err is human!
I am a Math and Computer major with a strong hold in writing concepts and vocabulary, but even I fall victim to the typos of the NETSpeak.
Also, you mean “Let’s” (contraction of “Let us”), not “Lets.” I wouldn’t've pointed it out, but you seem interested in learning.
Excuses, excuses! (Where does one find all the fun smiley faces, BTW?) Be truthful, you really did forget the apostrophe in “cant”, dint ya?
Further, ’tis thine own calumny to think I am unaware of what calumny is, forsooth! “I am beholden to calumny, that she hath so endeavored to belie me. – It shall make me set a surer guard on myself, and keep a better watch upon my actions.” (Ben Johnson)
But since your actual sentence started with a capitalized “Each” my statement was neither false, nor invalid. Nor was it calumny, for that matter, but simple truth posted for the sake of irony.
I will admit that, had you the proper grasp of an English Mechanic and had he pointed out your errors in punctuation (quotes, commas, periods, etc.), as you have now done for yourself, I would not have been able to point out the irony of your humorous lapse in “possess” nor “its”. (The “Saying that All of the Busses.” fragment was unimportant in the “possessives and apostrophe” controversy you were trying to explain, thus there was no humor/irony in pointing it out.)
Finally, your last statement just above could have been “Therefore, it’s incorrect usage AND should be corrected before children grow up ignorant.” But either way you fix it (and this is a mistake a computer programmer should not make), the sentence immediately above it is still an an “If/Then” statment missing the “Then” portion.
OOPS!
Just kidding with you, Dewartemaan. Lighten up!
One last thing about about calumny from Thomas Paine, “Calumny is a vice of curious constitution; trying to kill it keeps it alive; leave it to itself and it will die a natural death.”
You, officially, do not have a life. Congratulations.
You have less for being around just to point that out.
‘Busses’ refers to multiple kisses.
‘Buses’ are more than one bus.
Both are in the dictionary but have very different meanings and I have the burned lips from the tail pipes to prove it.
Zomg, I cannot tell you all how much I have enjoyed reading this conversation. I LOVE it when people talk about language as if it is actually important, and I’m so glad to see that there are still people who care about WHY language works the way it does. *happy dance*
/English professor geek moment
Wrong my fellow Netmonger.
While the word Buss can be used to mean ‘Kiss’ and the Present participle ‘bussing’ is equivalent to the use ‘kissing’. This is not the total definition to Buss. You could use the context of plural Buss, which would be to receive many busses in a crowd of women. This is my favored use.
So too does the Dictionary show the plural of the Bus (small truck, scheduled large vehicle for passengers, spacecraft or missile, or even a transmission path in a computer circuitry shows the plural of a Bus to also be Busses in Merriam Webster’s dictionary. You may find this form written in english literature.
I do believe that the use of ‘busses’ for the plural of Bus (motor vehicle) is Northern British UK in origin. Derived from Buss or Bussen used in Norway. Not to be confused with a Buss(a quid of chewing tobacco) or a Buss(Kiss).
I hope that you enjoyed this chat on Buss…
all your bus are belong to us’s.
Cow.
Bacon.
the wheels’s on the busess’s goes’s rounds and rounds…
rounds and rounds…rounds and rounds….
the wheels’s on the busess’s goes’s”sss round and round…
round and round…round and round….
all the days’sss’ long
I like how you say ‘think about it’ and then clearly confuse this simple question with grammatical B.S.
great. thanks.
why are people even arguing about this? do you really need to prove you’re the biggest, most correct grammar douche on the internet?
you just come off as a self-important pr*ck.
Heh, How dare you let him have that claim!
It is I!!!! j/k
I like to correct the jackarses that begin the grammar war. Whilst I enjoy hounding the hounder’s… so too do I write it about myself. I do this against my own post when I find that I made a mistake.
hehe I am an equal opportunity offender. 
heh
I don’t do it to be a prick, but I do it to enhance knowledge read by those who learn something by reading the rant…
Such as the post about the ‘Busses’ definition being wrong and being ‘kisses’. This person is most likely an American who learned a partial definition of Buss ‘a kiss’.
By showing this individual the derivation of the word Bus and Buss both equally meaning a multi-passenger vehicle, I open their eyes to consider more than what they already know.
Chuckle.
I’m waiting for someone to say “hounders*”.
but what happens when many bus own something?
We must consider them an intelligent race, rivalling our own. The balance of power the world over will shift as public transport vehicles create their own nations, forcing mass migration by the humans already inhabiting those lands and overpopulation in the countires they emigrate to.
Eventually, when our land grows insufficient for our growing race, we will have no choice but to wage war on the buses, resulting in a mass-extermination of the losing species to prevent any further threats to the victors place as Earth’s dominant species.
Your comment just made my day. I’ve been wading through this comments section for minutes; and yet your comment stands out. Thank you.
Did I mention I’m a sociologist. I know… sick.
LOL
The plural of bus is not bus’s. Idiot.
Also, if Jesus’ is correct, then why can’t Beavis’ and Avis’ be correct?
And Jesus’ is correct. Both are correct, actually. Or else you’d better get some picket signs and protest in front of every school I’ve gone to.
I thought the plural of bus was bi, or at least I think it should be.
That could get confusing. Maybe it should be “busi”
Yes, I see that your examples are different. And by different I mean Beavis’s looks stupid compared to Beavis’.
What does bus have to do with anything? The plural of bus is buses not bus’s. I don’t see how that can be used as an example.
And obviously you got that Avis’ was meant to be possesive. It’s not something most people don’t get, seeing as how even *you* understood it.
I rented a car from Avis one time and I was not impressed with their service.
Well she’s just a bird, cut her some slack.
I’m pretty sure ” Avis’ ” implies that there are more than one Avis who share the same avatar, which you are referring to.
Or pronounced “Aviseses” insead of Avises (Avis’s)
Avis’ or Avis’s is possessive, not plural.
haha avis’s is fine
Actually, it is Avis’s. When it is a singular person, even when it ends in “s”, it should still be “‘s”.
Actually until Microsoft changed English punctuation the correct one was Avis’s.
It really all depends on the style manual you’re using as to if Avis’ is acceptable. But regardless the manual, Avis’s will always be correct.
Separately, there was some argument about “each” being plural. It is never plural, in spite of its intent. “Each” as a subject must always take the third person singular verb conjugation, and its possessive should always be “its,” not “their.”
Actually, it can be both. Apostrophe compulsory, s optional.
Actually, it could be either. Both Avis’s and Avis’ is correct. However, the latter is used when the noun is plural. Which, in this case, the noun is not.
We learned that proper nouns (e.g. Tide, America, Dr. Zomboss) can have ‘s at the end. Example: Santa Claus’s red attire.
Everyone knows you can’t use a saw without a bird nearby! Duh.
WIN
Why is this wrong?
I’m a carpenter, maybe I can help.
Cutting a board in two pieces (meaning, one cut) took 10 minutes.
Therefore, cutting a board into 3 pieces (meaning, two cuts) will take twice as long.
The teacher is mistakenly assuming that the timing is based on the number of pieces produced. Incorrect. It depends on the number of cuts made.
The consequences will never be the same.
thank god you’re a carpenter, otherwise nobody would have figured it out on their own…
Religious should listen to a carpenter … does not make the same mistakes ^^
I see what you did there.
jeebuz was a carpenter
The teacher should have backtraced the answer.
This is a funny comment.
Are you referring to Nick R’s comment or is your comment recursive?
This is a recursive comment.
Recursive. Isn’t that swearing at someone that’s just sworn at you?
That would be retribution. Getting someone back for what they did to you.
Recursive is acting on Recursion. A Function calling upon itself until a specified condition occurs.
Slapping them until fulfilled.
Your brain uses Recursion to process information. So Tehcnically you keep calling the “Slap Function” until a condition stops the function… thus You decide the condition is the other person slapping you back, mauling you or otherwise.
LOL
“Re-curse”-ive – It was a play on words, cursing at someone who’s cursed at you. Cursing -> re-cursing.
Skellie made a funny ^_^
Recursion: see Recursion
Recursive comment is recursive
No, no, no, it’s “THIS recursive comment is recursive.”
Ahh… but that funny was illogical.
That curse does not compute Dave!
A Recursive being “Re-Curse-ive”, the person doing the Curse would Recurse. You cannot Recurse a curse if you have not already used a curse.
Bwahahahahaha
It doesn’t work when you have to explain it to people, does it?
This is a useless comment.
This is a reply to a useless comment.
This is a C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER before the combo really began.
I think you mean self-referential.
Actually both student and teacher are wrong. The problem clearly states that the person takes *just as long* to cut the 3 pieces as she did the 2. Thus, the correct answer is 10.
More precisely, the problem states she works “just as fast,” but fails to specify just as fast at =what=. I can see how both my answer and the student’s could be correct depending on what was actually meant in the problem statement.
Wow you’re retarded. If she works just as fast is implying that she would still take 10 minutes to cut a single board into 2 pieces, it says nowhere she’s working faster. You’re wrong, the student’s right. You are not smarter then a 5th grader.
However, I AM smarter thAn a fifth grader.
I’m a fifth grader. And I’m humbly [not(not)] saying that I am smarter than fifth graders.
Haha! Ironic!
“Fast” is a rate. It isn’t an amount.
Bubba fail.
Failure-to-see-an-obvious-joke FAIL, Bubba.
Bubba is correct. “Work” is a definded given Effort. That Effort is defined by the previous sentence, “It took Maried 10 minutes to saw a board into 2 pieces.”
If her Effort is the ability to cut once thru a board, lets call it a 2×4 arbitrarily, Thus if she needs to cut a length of board into 3 pieces, she needs 2 cuts, and each cut costs her an effort or time or her ‘work’ speed… 10 minutes x 2 cuts = 20 minutes.
Straight forward and to the point.
The question is the fail, since not enough information is provided to obtain a correct answer. The assumption that is being made is that all of the cuts are the same length, hence would take the same amount of time. This is not stated so it would be potentially possible for the answer to be a variety of different things depending on the direction of the cuts and the length of each cut. After all if I cut a 4×4 board into two pieces leaving me with one 1×4 and one 3×4 and then cut the 1×4 into two .5×4′s then I have cut a total distance of 4.5 inches, which would only take 11.25 minutes if the first cut took 10 minutes.
Wrong. If you cut a 4×4 into a 1×4 and 3×4 (we’ll assume inches since you did) you have made a 4 inch cut. If you then take your 1×4 which is a long rectangle and cut it into two .5x4s which are just as long but half as wide you have to cut the long way – or another 4 inch cut. Get a little square of paper and some safety scissors and try.
Nope the student is right your still wrong. Her rate of sawing doesn’t change. It will still take her 10 minutes to cut the board down to 2 peices. It will take her another 10 minutes to cut a 3rd. What I want to know is why she just didn’t buy a circular saw when she was at the Home Depot. I could had that thing cut in 2 minutes.
it would take you 2 minutes to cut it with a circular saw? Wouldn’t it take 2 seconds?
Think about it. You gotta take it out of the cellophane, find an outlet, realize outlet is too far away, go get extension cord (instead of moving wood), observe proper safety precautions (3rd piece doesn’t count if you’re pulling it out of your eye!) and THEN make your two second cut!
SEE!!!!! Safety IS third!!!!!
I’m sure you could use a pair of scissors on a 2×4 and get it cut faster than either of those estimates.
The problem asks how long it would take her to cut 2 pieces if it took her 10 minutes to cut one piece. Read it again. The answer is 20.
oh, admit it, u were wrong when u tried to be clever by saying the correct answer is 10
“just as fast” can be reworded as “at the same pace” it didn’t say she FINISHED it just as fast, it just says she WORKED just as fast, so let’s take this from the top, reworded. If she worked at the same pace, how long would it take her to saw another board into 3 pieces? the answer has been decided, correctly, as 20 minutes. in any case, i’m sure u know what was meant in the question, anyway
“just as fast” relates to the time needed making one cut through the whole board (10 min per cut). A cut is a flat fragmentation of a three-dimensional object (but also refers to one-dimensional fragmentation of a two- or one-dimensional object in a model). So the exact definition would be time/(boardthickness*cutwidth) in my opinion. So the description of the Problem itself already fails in lacking the information what he performs to get three pieces, cause it’s possible to saw a board into three pieces in many different ways. Most likely he performs an equal cut to get a third piece which means the students solution has the highest chance to be correct.
Trying to look really smart FAIL.
You can’t just flatly say that without offering an explanation.
What if I said “NAME FAIL” and then just ran off?
It doesn’t say “just as long”. It says if she works “just as fast”. Very different meaning in those two phrases when read in the context of the problem.
You do not have to be a carpenter to figure that out… just that teacher should’nt be allowed to teach to childrens
Plural FAIL! Children is the plural of child. Therefore “childrens” has no meaning whatsoever other than a serious grammar FAIL.
More grammar FAIL: “should’nt” would be incorrect placement of the apostrophe. Correct would be “shouldn’t”.
trolling a troll? really?
These children’s teacher would probably disagree
The carpenter aspect is irrelevant, but your explanation cleared it up. So yeah. Thanks (not sarcastic on that).
CARPENTER = NOT SUCH A SMART PERSON’S JOB……WHY U THINKIN U SO SMART, MAYBE IF YOUR AVATAR WAS A BIRD ANNNND YOU WERE A CARPENTER….ID UNDERSTAND YOU BEING SMART
Hello. This is a public service announcement. Please direct your attention to the “Caps Lock” button towards the left hand side of your key-board. Now please press said button and continue typing as normal. Thank you, and have a great day.
Next week, can you teach it the difference between the letter U and the word you? It seems to think they’re interchangeable.
Look at the roof over your head – a Carpenter put it there.
Sleep well, ‘smart person’.
No, silly, because cutting a board into one piece takes 5 minutes! Duh!
My thought exactly. Thanks for clearing this up.
Depends on if the pieces are cut straight across a plane…
If the first cut was diagonal, a 2nd cut to get 3 pieces would be half the length. No mention is made of the shape or angle of cuts in relation to each other or the size of pieces so I think the question was a bad example to get a pre-conceived answer.
It could have been a square board, which when cut in half you would have half the distance to cut and therefore take 15 min, but this is a REALLY subjective answer to begin with.
I never said it was. I said that the teacher usually gets their way, and that he grade would likely stand.
Only He-Man can earn a “he grade.”
made me lol IRL!!!
YES! I was gonna reply “And Chuck Norris”, but that was just so good I can’t ruin it. I’m still laughing.
Seriously??? You should go back to school…
*facepalm*
Step one – cut board in half – time =10 minutes
Step two – cut one piece in half – time = 10 minutes
Total = 20
Why would it take less time to make the second cut?
Well, if it was a square board, and you made one cut down the middle of the square, then made one cut down the middle of the middle, widthwise, of the resulting half, then it would in fact take 15 minutes to cut the board into 3 peices.
This was not, however, specified as the situation.
This is one of the smartest things I’ve read in internet comments in a long, long time.
There is a diagram next to the picture, guys, which shows a picture of the board being clearly not a square.
question*
wow thats actually really good thinking! =P
+1 nice lateral thinking bud. Don’t think the teacher (if it’s real) would be able to come up with that one in a million years.
It would take less time if the material was different on the remaining part of the board.
Clearly ‘shopped.
what if she had an electric saw?
I had a situation like this. The teacher got the wrong answer and I ended up correcting the teacher, in front of the class. I’m bold but my teachers learned that if I wasnt paying attention in class, it was because they were idiots and I wasnt learning anything.
If the teacher is wrong and wont renig, there are proper channels to confront the issue. Go to the Math department Head. The grade will be changed and the teacher will get a serious talking to. If the Department head, by chance, is an idiot… Go to the Dean/Principal/Provost or whatever head of the school exists and state your case.
Luckily I never had to go that far.
PS: In a subjective course, where your answers are short answer/essay it’s easy for a teacher to think you are wrong. Then you have to document your proof from printed material to state your case. The teacher will be stuck on their own subjective opinion. Now my Father told me ages ago, Find out the teachers opinion and always answer it the way they see it and you will always have an ‘A’. Such as a British Literature class, and “Why do you think the author described this.. this way”. Your opinion doesnt matter.
Politics and crap.
But with Math… it is set in stone.
btw, ‘hahaha’ it’s “your” not “You’re”.
Had a situation like this in 6th grade (teacher said a double-pulley would allow you to lift an object with half the work expended)… after she won’t correct herself or accept that I might be right, I ask if she writes her own tests or uses ones from the book… why? To know if I need to use the correct answer or her answer come test-time… and off to the Principal’s office we go. (Yeah, lippy… that’s me)
VP asked why I was there, I stated “I don’t believe a double-pulley will let you do half the work” … he looked puzzled for a sec and responded “half the force, twice the distance, same work…”
And I got one of the few times in my life where I had the right line at the right time:
“Oh… Is that why you’re here?”
…
VP: “Sit down, be quiet; wait for the bell to ring”
Me: “You want to call my dad? I’ve got his number if you need to”
VP: “No, just sit down and wait for the next class”
I was hoping they’d call my dad (Math Degree, working Construction Supervisor at the time) to tell him I was in trouble for not believing a double-pulley would let you lift an object with half the work expended. I’d have taken the trouble I’d get in to watch the trouble everyone else would get in…
Oh, the test? Obviously photocopies from the back of the book…
I don’t understand the climax of your story. The VP was correct and therefore supporting your position (that the teacher is wrong), so why did you respond with a snarky comment?
Half the force, same work. He basically just reworded it, but still got the principle wrong. Incidentally, ert, I love you.
Half the force, twice the distance => same work; so the vp was right, and had the right principle.
I admit I don’t see the point of the story after the ellipsis…
The point? Our personal enjoyment of knowing how the rest of the encounter with the VP went.
Terrible question. Should be thrown out. I see the teachers logic. but I also see the kids.
think of it as time per cut not time/piece of wood.
10 minutes = 2 pieces – so one cut
so 20 minutes = 3 pieces, because it needs two cuts.
By saying “teacher’s logic” and “kid’s logic”, you mean “incorrect” and “correct” logic, respectively.
There’s nothing wrong with this test question; in fact, I think it’s brilliant for exactly the fail shown here. The kid passed, realizing that two pieces == 1 cut.
why did it take 10 minutes?
She was using a plastic knife from the cafeteria to cut the wood.
Teacher focused on the time for number of pieces instead of the time per number of cuts.
The teacher is correct; 2 pieces = 10 min, 3 pieces = 15 min, and 4 pieces = 20 min. It asked for the time to cut 3 pieces.
Yes, but to cut a piece of wood into two pieces takes one cut- and that takes her 10 minutes. However, if you cut it into three pieces, you only need two cuts, so if she works at the same rate at 10 minutes per cut, it takes her 20 minutes.
The teacher is an imbecile.
idgi
As an english teacher myself, I NEVER change a grade. It undermines my authority in the class room. Maybe you’re teachers did this, but its a very bad habit to get into.
I sure hope you are trolling… If not FAIL and it is YOUR
And “it’s” (= it is), not “its” (possessive). “it’s a very bad habit…”
So much for being an (E)nglish teacher.
Because no one is EVER wrong. All my best professors were/are willing to acknowledge grading errors, and fix them
As a third grade teacher, I make it a point to tell my students that everyone makes mistakes – you just have to fix them and learn from them. I disagree that changing a grade undermines my authority. If I make a grading mistake, I am more than willing to correct that error. However, I do teach my students that proper nouns should be capitalized (english = English – the name of the language), compound words should be written correctly (class room = classroom), and to use homophones correctly in sentences (you’re = your).
Thank you, Amanda, for saying what I wanted and much more eloquently than I would have. Miguel basically says that it’s okay to teach wrong things for the sake of his authority and that makes me sad.
Ummm, this whole list of comments is an Epic Fail.
The point is, is that if it takes 10 minutes to make one cut into two peices – then to make three peices on a fresh board, it would take two cuts: and it takes this person 10 minutes to make one cut. Which means the answer is in fact 20 mins.
The teacher is wrong. All you could come up with was a spelling mistake. Your all retarded. Honestly.
Fail.
I dont how this is a fail…
I dont get how this is a fail…
well if you first cut it lengthwise then regularly it is correct
wait, I might just be losing it or something, but i see nothing wrong with the picture, what is the fail?
what is the fail that is correct
i dont get get the fail. the answer would realy be 15
Fail…
Teacher is right if it takes Marie 5 minutes to grab a board
U fail! it took 10 minutes to cut it once and 20 to cut it twice which makes 3 pieces
ThatGuy has a point
ah,you didnt get what he was saying.
She never said that it needed only two saws in the wood to get 3 pieces. For example, if sawing the edges would be needed, to get 2 pieces would be needed 3 saws. She asked for pieces vs. time, not time vs. saws. Teacher is right!
No.
Go buy some wood and a saw and try it.
Fail.
Perhaps… If the initial piece of wood is not consider a piece (trying to make a set size of pieces from the board), where sawing the board would give you one “piece” then the teacher would be right. Either the teacher is dumb or the the question is worded very very poorly.
Look at the picture , the teacher is wrong.
No, if it was three saws (I assume you mean “cuts” here) it would be thirty minutes.
Look, it takes two cuts to make three pieces. Let’s assume that the board is equal width all the way across, that each cut is in the same 90 degree direction relative to the length of the board, and that “setting up time,” “finding the saw time” is not include, nor do we assume the person sawing doesn’t get noticeably slower or faster at cutting from the first cut to the second.
So, if the first cut takes 10 minutes, the *second* cut *also* takes ten minutes – ten plus ten equals twenty – two cuts, three pieces, twenty minutes.
Teacher is wrong…period.
Your comment assumes a large source and cutting 3 same sized pieces.
20 foot board. Cutting three 3ft pieces would take 30 minutes. Correct.
This is not the case.
a 9 foot board, cutting the board twice to get 3 individual pieces. 20 minutes.
The problem is being over-read by many people and you start to double guess what the problem is stating. Look at the picture. The board is cut and it appears to be a 1/3rd of the length of the large portion of the board. So the poblem is asking, how long to cut 3 pieces on another board.
I remember a sociological Math problem once. By the Math: Two people painting a room. Person 1 takes 2 hours to paint a room. Person 2 takes 1 hour to paint a room. If they paint the 10x10x8 room together how long would it take to complete.
Math would dictate to calculate the square foot of the room’s walls and at what speed each person could paint a square foot. Without room dimensions you’d be looking at 2 people moving at different speeds to reach a point in the middle. Remember the train equations traveling at each other?
So assume a 10 ft room.
Person1= 2 hrs=120 min=7200 second
Person2= 2 hr = 60 min = 3600 seconds
Arbitrary length = 10 foot
Rate:
Person1= 0.001388889 ft/sec
Person2=0.002777778 ft/sec
Combined rate (speed): P1+P2= 0.004166667 ft/sec
We know speed and distance and looking for time?
Speed= distance/time
time=distance/speed
x= 10/0.004166667
x=40 minutes
TECHNICALL: both people working together should assist at this rate. But sociology said…
1. What if the speedier person rushed and missed spots.
2. what if the 2 people talked and distracted each other.
3. what if the second person was inexperienced and the p1 had to repaint what p2 already did.
Answer might be… 1 hour because P1 had to redo P2. but P2 might have redone P1′s speedy sloppy paint job, and made it 2 hours.
The class made an arguement that you add both people times together and it’d be 3 hours because they argued. 
:)
I prefer math class, as it’s striaght and to the point. It’s politics and people that cause simplistic problems to become more of a headache than they originally were.
Actually, that other thing in the diagram is the saw, not another piece of wood. I suppose it would help to figure out the question if the entire diagram was visible, but oh well. Here’s what I get from this:
Let’s say the board she’s cutting is 6 feet long, and 1 foot wide, and she’s cutting the board so the pieces will measure 2X1. She’d be cutting in the same direction both times. The student got it right, the correct answer is 20.
That seems like a rather convoluted method to determine the number of rooms painted in one hour. Seems simpler to note that Person 1 and Person 2 together paint 3 rooms in 2 hours.
Therefore they paint 1 room in 2/3 hours.
2/3 hours = 40 min.
LOL….
Esar…
That was meant to be convoluted. I did it as an expressive verbose math example.
You can’t work out the room sizes for R1 and R2, so room size for R3 (10*10*8) must be assumed for R1,R2 or problem is insolvable. If R1=R2=R3, than esar has the simple solution.
Similarly, the lengths of everything in the picture are irrelevant (or the problem is unsolvable), the problem tests a minimal amount of critical thinking (the part the teacher failed) and the ability to multiply a given by 2.
Failure-to-see-obvious-attempt-at-a-joke FAIL!
Would that be a double negative?
Not just a teacher fail but the teacher’s logic failed
1 kilometer/milliliter^2
Ha!!!! trick question she likes oranges
It’s not too late to fix that if you can travel faster than light. Go back home, grab some apples, and show up before you give her the oranges, problem solved.
Jake wins!
Finally! Someone actually WON the game! (Just wondering, where are the instructions for that game? I seem to have no idea how to win it)
Just forget about it
http://xkcd.com/391/
There is the answer.
I may be failing here myself, but…
I’m not seeing the fail.
It takes 10 minutes to saw one piece of wood into two pieces… so 10 minutes for one cut. If you want three pieces, you need 2 cuts at 10 minutes per cut.
Not if you have 2 boards and dispose of the fourth piece before the teachers sees it. This assumes the boards are side-by-side and said student saws through both simultaneously thus giving us a 10-15 minute work time depending on the strength left in the student’s arm and factoring in the extra friction required. If one board is on top of the other it would still probably take 20 minutes.
How can you saw through two boards simultaneously if they’re side by side?
Really carefully.
It takes 10 minutes to cut a board in half. you have to make two cuts to cut it into 3 pieces. 2×10=20
I know right, it’s not a fail at all.
10 minutes = 2 boards
15 minutes = 3 boards
20 minutes = 4 boards
The correct answer = 15
Really? How about reading the X-hundred comments beforehand? It’s OK, though… you’ll get it for sure by fourth grade. Stay in school!
It’s more like this:
0 minutes = 1 board (since you start with it)
10 minutes = 2 boards (1 cut)
20 minutes = 3 boards (2nd cut)
5 minutes worth of cutting only gets you halfway through the board… It doesn’t separate it into two pieces.
Actually, I’ve come to a conclusion. If the Person cutting the board is Chuck Norris, it would take 0 seconds to get 3 pieces. He’d look at the board and in fear it would shatter!
no, if it were chuck norris it would take 45 minutes
20 minutes to cut the board twice, then 25 minutes of boring old chuck norris jokes from the internet
dude… pray he doesn’t read this…
Yep… waaaaaayyyyyy overused. LOL
I got bored and whacky this far down the forum discussion.
Actually the carpenter up there is correct.
The number of boards produced doesn’t matter, what matters is the number of cuts. It takes 10 minutes to make one cut (so you get 2 pieces), so it will take twice that, 20 minutes to make two cuts (3 pieces). 20 minutes is right.
I can also see the teachers logic. But It’s a terrible question. Question should be thrown out.
Think about it. If it takes 10 minutes of sawing to cut through the board once (making it into 2 pieces), it’s going to take another 10 minutes to cut through it again (making 3 pieces). 15 minutes doesn’t make sense.
actually, its ok, cause in 10 mins 2 pieces, so that’d make 5 mins per piece so, 15 mins=3 pieces..
No.
Fail.
I always love reading the comments for these “simple math” fails. There are always a few people that still don’t get it.
One piece into two pieces – One cut – 10 minutes
One piece into three pieces – Two cuts – 20 minutes
Doesn’t the teacher have a point with 20 mins for 4 pieces? The description actually said “another board”. That makes it 2 boards cut in half 4 half boards.
*…cut in half = 4 half boards.
The question didn’t ask how long it would take to cut into four pieces. Besides if she was cutting 2 boards at once it would probably take her twice as long, as slow as Marie is.
No. You fail. Now please leave until you finish 5th grade math.
Still fail! “Another board into 3 pieces” means one board, two cuts, 10 minutes per cut. Your continuing fail makes me laugh, but is also a sign of how awful the current education system is.
No, think about it as 10 minutes per CUT, not 5 minutes per piece.
1 piece does not equal 5 minutes or anything at else, because 1 piece means the board was not cut at all.
2 pieces means the board was cut once, which took 10 minutes.
3 pieces means the board was cut twice, which would take 2×10=20minutes
Teacher was wrong, student was right.
explain it to me one more time please !!
Wow. Total fail. I mean, you had to read the explanations and then toss out the same fail as the teacher. That’s a major double fail…
actually, it’s quite possible *although it’s a trick question if this is the logic behind it): example: 1 cut lengthwise, on a square board, takes ten minutes. now, cut one of those halves in half, and it will take half the time (because it has half the width as it originally did), thus leaving you with three pieces. (the instructions never said they had to be equally sized.)
OHHHHH! Wait..what? i think I hurt my brain. LOL! Very clever actually!
I hurt my brain trying to figure out which way was lenghwise on a square board. Is it with the grain??
Unless the majority of the time is spent setting the board up, preparing it to be cut, getting the saw clean and ready etc, and the actual cutting time is fast. Then it’s still 20 minutes.
You win the thread
You win ten internets.
or 15 internets cut in half!
Which direction?
Against the grain, just because of the length of the thread…
Anony Mouse is right. Though if this was the case, the teacher should’ve made it clear in the question, hehehe…
Glad I’m not the only one who thought of that when I read it :/
this works only if the board was a square before cutting
No, this is still a fail. Using your logic, a board of any dimension could be used and the time it takes would be completely based off of unknown dimensions of the board.
Also, given your logic, she might as well just saw a tiny corner off the board and call it a day in <1 minute.
There were no instructions anywhere notifying the reader that the board's orientation or direction of the cut would be changing.
Actually, I need to correct myself. The question states if her rate remains constant. The value we have for rate is 1cut/10min. It’s independent of the amount of wood actually cut through.
Therefore, the only correct answer is 20 minutes.
Let’s imagine that the board being cut is a 3 dimensional scalene triangular pyramid.
There are 4 points (corners) on a triangular pyramid, imagine the 3 base corners are labelled A, B and C and the peak of the pyramid is D. IF the carpenter makes a cut from point D directly through C to (A+B)/2, then we have 2 further scalene triangular pyramids but with 50% of the mass.
That would mean the second cut would take half of the time if the carpenter was to work at the same rate as when he made the first cut.
Of course, this is assuming that the carpenter wants to make inefficient cuts that produce scalene triangular pyramids. If he wanted, say, an equilateral dodecahedron, he could quite easily take a whole lot longer to make such cuts, even when working at the same rate.
This whole question is flawed. It’s not a teacher fail nor student fail. It’s an examination board fail.
But there’s a diagram next to the question showing a long, thin piece of wood with a saw held against it. The board in the diagram is far too thin to cut it lengthwise, therefore the cuts would have to be taking from the length, not the width. 20 minutes is the correct answer.
wow
*eye twitch*
It took me a couple of times looking at it, but I got it. If it takes her 10 minutes to cut the board in 2 (one cut) and she works at the same pace (making one cut every 10 minutes), it would take her 20 minutes to cut a board into 3 pieces (two cuts). Make sense?
I’m gonna pull the smartass act: The student’s strength over time decreases, so the actual time would be about 20-25 minutes. I’m guessing 23-ish
What if she is using a table saw and is doing some really careful measuring before making each cut making sure she takes exactly 10 minutes per cut? There are also several variables not included. Is the second board the same kind of wood different woods require different cutting times. The saw blade will also dull due to friction and not cut quite as quickly unless of course it is diamond tipped. Also is she cutting against the grain this time or with it. Technically since there will fragments of wood grain all around after this supposed cutting there would be more than 3 pieces.
There is your smart ass philosophical answer.
And that’s all irrelevant given the question specifically states that the rate of sawing (1 cut in 10 minutes) remains constant.
It’s statet in the problem that he keeps on sawing with the same speed. So even if he does get weaker he doesn’t get slower or you are making up a new problem.
Fail. The question explicitly states that Marie’s rate of sawing remains constant.
2 pieces means one cut. 3 pieces means two cuts. If it takes Marie 10 minutes to make one cut (2 pieces), it will take her twice as long – 20 minutes – to make two cuts (3 pieces).
Don’t you see, if x equals the answer then multiply it by 2, the divide by 7, then take the square root and you have the answer!!! Isn’t math amazing?!?!?!?!?
WUT?
Don’t forget to multiply by your phone number and divide by your IQ…
thats what i was thinking
I do not get what is wrong with this at all…
Go straight to school. Do not pass go.
I’ll be the jock.
Do not collect $200 bucks
Redundant statement! $200 does not need the word “bucks.”
I’ve always wanted my own buck! We’d go mountaineering together!
I tend to lean more to Duck Dodgers, of the 24th-and-a-half century.
Marie would need twenty sawbucks. And a sharper saw.
Actually a good buck would cost much more than $200, which is why you should not collect them. Plus, they tend to fight. Not to mention the fact that if you do collect $200 bucks, you’re going to need to hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband.
wow ppl who dont get this fail
I bet the teacher is a woman
I like how you think.
I, though, don’t.
I think he’s right, though. A man wouldn’t go through the trouble explaining the “mistake”, because they’re either too lazy or just jerks. A woman would go through all that trouble because women are empathic and would like the student to understand their failure to grasp the matter at hand. A man, however, would know how to use a saw and a wooden board, whereas a woman would usually not, leaving matters of the saw to their man. Therefore Tweeter’s statement actually makes more sense than you could make of it at first glance.
It’s not a matter of sexism, it’s just simple sociology that leads to such a claim.
Logic fail. I happen to excel at using tools. I am female and I also know basic plumbing, electrical and auto repair.
It’s called not accepting social norms just because it’s easy to do so.
Than again, I also read science fiction and like hockey so apparently I’m a guy with t*ts.
I’ve seen women that read science fiction, and I’ve seen female “hockey” players (there’s no body-checking or fighting), but Dr. Mario is still correct.
I’m sorry, but as long as women like you don’t make more than 20% of the female population, you’re still an exception and not a norm. We can’t go through life accounting for every single exception. Sometimes we have to make guesses, rely on probabilities…
If I had to guess whether the teacher is a male or a female, I would also say she’s a female. Not because I think ALL women suck at using tools, but because few women have experience with tools like a saw or hammer. Thus the odds of being correct are higher if you answer “female” than if you answer “male”.
But I do think the way Tweeter said it was rude. It does sound like a deliberate attempt at insulting women.
The logic, however, seems correct to me.
I would like to see your data proving that more than 20% of women have no experience with tools like a saw or hammer. I suspect at least 90% of women have at least some experience with tools like a saw or hammer. It’s hard to get through life without ever using a saw or hammer. Ever hang a picture? Ever prune a bush?
I suspect Dr. Mario might be an 18-year-old male who doesn’t know any actual women.
sorry Dr. Mario…
That would be O.
Any woman who’s ever been married has experience with a hammer…
Um…did you actually read what Dr Mario wrote? If so, could you kindly point out the part where he says women can’t use tools, or read science fiction, because I can’t seem to find that anywhere in his post. Also, I seem unable to locate any mention of hockey or sports in general. Any help you could give me in this would be greatly appreciated.
rofl
Really, Dr. Mario? Have you ever actually interacted with women?
I, as a woman, freely admit that the teacher is indeed more likely to be a woman. Not because men are more often jerks or lazy (because seriously, that’s just patently untrue), and not because women are more empathetic (because that is also untrue). A man would most likely have marked it wrong without explanation in order to allow the student to figure it out for themselves, whereas a woman would feel the need to explain it to the student herself.
It’s not a matter of some kind of moral superiority of women (which is, let’s be honest, bulls**t anyway), it’s just a matter of different styles of communication and teaching.
I disagree ‘Anon’. I am a male. The Women teachers do tend to be empathetic and desire to help the child thru a nuturing aspect of their psychology and makeup.
As a male teacher, I am likely to express and teach to increase deductive reasoning. I use a different reasoning to expalin to the child, and we both would bring a better understanding but form different angles.
I think that I had a better grasp of a subject when My teacher and/or Tutor/parent/etc were of opposite sexes, because I was learning to contemplate ideas from multiple viewpoints.
I dont mark things wrong and walk away. I do however describe, talk, and continue on until ewither their eyes glass over, or their heads explode from the ‘overt use of details’
in time
not
—–little too much to teach someone to teach.. better get laid off
heh
i know…
I bet this teacher is an idiot.
I bet this teacher is hot… and blonde… and featured on hawtness.com.
i’m so confused. how is this a fail?
10/2=x/3
x=15
im i missing something?
common sense
ha ha ha, comment WIN !!!
She asked for it…
she must be blonde …and hot!
Ohhh, wait, i realize my mistake. and now i feel stupid. probably much like the teacher who got this fail broadcast all over the internet.
The difference is that you didn’t get paid to plan, administer, and grade the aforementioned test.
past tense FTW!
It takes 10 minutes to cut a board in half.
So unless cutting it into 3 pieces has some way to CUT that time in half then it will take 20 minutes to cut a board into 3 pieces
Indeed.
More mathematically-phrased explanation:
For making cuts through a board,
if x is the time it takes to saw through it,
x isn’t a function of the board’s length.
It’s a function of the board’s width.
No matter how many pieces you cut a board into (i.e. reducing its length), you will not affect x.
im sorry what? That makes no logical sense. If X is a function of width, then the answer in this case wouldn’t be possible. Run through the formulas. I know where your coming from but mathematically the answer is correct.
Math test does NOT equal a logic test.
No.
Fail.
You know whats FAIL? Arguing with strangers about how to answer a simple math problem. That’s FAIL.
Are you arguing with me?
Math test *does* equal logic test. srlsly.
es, you are correct.
Math = Logic with numbers.
Which is probably why they have “Math Puzzles and Logic Problems” as a periodical.
There was a Y at the beginning of that post. I swear there was.
But now there isn’t.
There’s you failing, both. X is not a matter of width or length, it’s the TIME it takes to cut through the board. X is a function of time, not length or width. It is also a constant in this case, since its value has been given: 10 minutes.
I think you call width/length what he calls length/width.
Of course it would be possible… the question gives you X’s value… then it describes the person operating on the value of Y (length of board)… then it asks you for 2*X
Well if the first cut is a practice cut it could take her half the time to make the second.
yes… the above… they stated the answer… >.> it’s actually 20 but the teacher, probably bought there degree, thought the answer was 15 when it’s really 20
“their” degree.
-fail
Actually, it would be “his or her” degree, because “their” would imply 2 or more people.
You’re stupid, aren’t you?
because one cut with a saw is 10 minutes
and 3 pieces requires 2 cuts?
2 cuts @10 min each is 20 min
yes you are missing something…..with your assumption, you are saying that 5/1 = 10/2 = x/3….which implies that it takes 5 minutes to make one piece of wood…you start with one piece of wood, therefor your logic is invalid
2 boards means 1 cut which took 10 minutes
3 boards means 2 cuts which is 2 * 10 = 20 minutes
common sense will help you more than math here…
you’re retarded
yeah, thanks i see that now. but retarded is an offensive term. a simple “incorrect” would suffice. i would even settle for “stupid” or “dumb” but please in the future make an attempt to stay away from the work “retard.” thank you.
Hey, retards can work too.
“Retarded” is actually a common and non-offensive term in psychology. It describes a type of disorder.
What’s offensive is to call you retarded when you are not.
This is a board: ======
you cut it in 2: ===|===
Took you 10 minutes to make 1 cut.
Take a new board: ======
Cut it in 3 pieces: ==|==|==
Took you 20 minutes to make 2 cuts.
(A graphic explanation for all the reading-disorderly people out there)
Wonderful graphics.
+1 nicely done. Idiocy, however, appears to be immune to even graphical approaches. I’m sure there’s a better way to express it than idiocy though. Abstract-thinking challenges?
Says just as fast. That means that the teachers right.
I fail to see your logic. If it takes you 10 minutes to make 1 cut, it takes you 20 minutes to make 2 cuts, at the same speed (Just as fast).
Since a board can be split in 3 by making 2 cuts, 2 cuts should be enough.
15 would be correct if it took you 7 minutes and a half to make 1 cut.
Now I see why everyone says the American education is failing
Takes one to know one ;D!
But yeah, thanks for the heads up. I’ll keep an eye next time I cross a bridge.
Just as fast = the person saws at the same speed. So it takes the same amount of time to make one cut. Teacher’s wrong.
in pretty colors would be better for those with most severe disorders
this is a board =====================
you cut this in 2 ===/===/==============
it took you 10 minutes to cut 2 PIECES (presumedly equal length)
you take a new board ======================
saw in 3 pieces ===/===/===/=============
it will take you 15 minutes to make 2 cuts 3 pieces
you fail, the teacher was right !
this is a board =====================
you cut this in 2 ===/===/==============
it took you 10 minutes to cut 2 PIECES (presumedly equal length)
you take a new board ======================
saw in 3 pieces ===/===/===/=============
it will take you 15 minutes to make 3 cuts 3 pieces
you fail, the teacher was right !
Wrong, this ===/===/====== is cutting a board into 3 pieces…
this =====/==== is two pieces
I realize that English is probably not your primary language, but cutting a board in two means you have two pieces, not three as in your fine picture.
So, I’ll give you partial credit for translation fail.
you automatically assume that English is not my primary language because
my name is not in English, Mr.Pleet???? well, I call that ignorant…
First of all, if you kindly look at my fine picture one more time, as well as the original figure in this post. There are 2 pieces of wood which have equal length ! I purposely have made the third piece extra long just to differentiate with the other 2 pieces to avoid ignorant reply like yours but well, just like stupid people, inevitably you will have to meet them. Anyway, Mr.Pleet so you called yourself, have a nice day.
No, he assumed English is not your primary language because you’re retarded.
Ok so after you cut 3 pieces of wood from a large piece of wood, like this:
===/===/===/================
what do you call the remaining last, large, piece of wood.
Oh wait, I just gave you the answer: a piece of wood.Tadaaaaa \o/
What you mean is cutting 2 pieces FROM a board:
===/===/===================
And then cutting 3 pieces FROM a board
===/===/===================
Hieu,
That statement made even less sense than your previous one.
Evidently Google Translate is not all it’s cracked up to be.
No.
Cutting a board into TWO pieces is ====/====
One cut makes two pieces.
Two cuts makes three pieces ===/===/===
10 minutes per cut = 20 minutes for 3 pieces
I used to have a cat named Fuzz. He was pretty stupid, too.
I’m with Fuzz. I don’t see the fail either. It looks correct to me
I’m sorry then.
actually the teacher is right, cuz if u got a board that is for example 4×4, and u saw it in 2 pieces, u have 2 pieces of 2×4, saw that one in 2 pieces its 1×4, soo u only gotta saw half the distance when the board was whole
What?
Interesting thought, but the question didn’t specify that Marie was cutting a board in that fashion. It simply said “board”. Most would assume that she was cutting a long board in the way Jon said.
And regardless, following that logic, cutting the board into 4 pieces would take 17.5 mins, but the teacher says it would take 20mins, meaning the teacher wasn’t thinking along these lines.
Therefore, it’s safe to assume that the teacher thought to cut a board in two, you need to make 2 cuts, and cutting it into 3 would take 3 cuts, which means she FAILS.
Actually, cutting the board that way would take 20 minutes still. After the 4×2 comes a 2×2, which would take five minutes to cut.
Uh, actually cutting a 4×2 down to 2×2 takes the same amount of time as cutting 4×4 down to 4×2 — you’re cutting lengthwise each time, so the distance you’re cutting doesn’t change.
Unless you’d like to specify a 4x4x4 cube to start, which you’re first cutting down to 4x4x2, and then one half down to 4x2x2…
More mathematically-phrased explanation:
For making cuts through a board,
if x is the time it takes to saw through it,
x isn’t a function of the board’s length.
It’s a function of the board’s width.
No matter how many pieces you cut a board into (i.e. reducing its length), you will not affect x.
that makes sense, but no where in the question was the size of the board stated or how to cut it. based on the form of the question, the answer is 20.
i once had a teacher like this (in college). she did not want to admit she was wrong so would not give the entire class credit for the answer. even after we showed her the correct answer in the book.
You should have taken it to the dean.
I had a maths teacher who tried something similar and refused to admit he was wrong. Our whole class took it to the principal, our tests were corrected (in front of the teacher) and the teacher was escorted off the premises before the day was out. As far as I’ve heard he has never been given a teaching job since and serves the idiot right. In my opinion abject humiliation and losing your job is far too nice a punishment for stubborn fools.
Teachers that can not learn from their students (as well as vice versa) don’t deserve to be teachers.
He got fired for that? Where do you live, the Soviet Union?
If that’s the case, the Soviet Union has better schools. California refuses to fire idiot teachers in the LAUSD who have a 50% drop out and failure to graduate rate, and in some cases have sex with underage students and are never reported to the police.
Our public schools are a joke. If they fired teachers who were absolutely wrong and refused to admit it and correct the mistake, they shouldn’t be teaching our kids.
This was an elite private school in Australia and gross incompetence is a perfectly legitimate reason to lose your job. It is, however, a lot harder to sack public school teachers in this country due to a shortage in the public sector (crappy pay).
Oh and in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last 20 years the Soviet Union is dead, it’s now the CIS (Commonwealth of Independant States).
Well, by your logic it would be funny to add “The first 2 pieces are butterfly shaped, the next 3 pieces are circular” to add a very nice chaotic side to the whole thing.
But the fact is: “Takes 10 minutes to cut 1 board into 2 pieces, how long does it take to cut a NEW board into 3 pieces?” (As it says on the question itself: ANOTHER BOARD)
Actually, the last piece is a spherical board. It’s a bit hard to visualize in 3 dimensional space, try thinking in 7 dimensions. That usually helps.
Even if the board was being cut that way you would be wrong. You can have a 4×4 that is five feet long or ten or twenty. If you cut it into a 2×4 then you are cutting the full length and if you then take one of those 2x4s and cut it into a 1×4 you are still cutting the full length.
Nope, crosscut. There’s a picture.
Even then, it would take just as long. You’re making the cut the same length.
By that logic (cut time is a function of cut length) you could cut an infinite amount of pieces in 10 minutes. That is to say you could cut a piece off in infinitesimal amount of time if the piece was really small. Like you shave off a corner. The question doesn’t say the pieces have to be equal size.
NO. You FAIL.
Fail. Epically.
The width of the board is irrelevant.
The rate given is 1cut / 10 min.
The question explicitly states that the rate remains constant.
In your failed logic, the first cut was done at the correct rate, and then you modified a given fact for the second cut.
If you cut a 4×4 into two pieces do you get a 2×2 or an 8×8?
2 pieces = 1 cut = 10 min
3 pieces = 2 cuts = 20 min
Also a street term for broken-glass diarrhea.
@ Fuzz, Yea when i first read this i thought the same thing. I figured the teacher was right. But the thing is to cut a piece of wood into 2, its 1 cut. So if you cut the wood once more to make 3 pieces then its just double the time, which is 20mins.
This fails at being a fail, the teacher is right.
Exactly how do you figure?
No, you fail, because the teacher is wrong. The answer is 20.
A mathematically-phrased explanation:
For making cuts through a board,
if x is the time it takes to saw through it,
x isn’t a function of the board’s length.
It’s a function of the board’s width.
No matter how many pieces you cut a board into (i.e. reducing its length), you will not affect x.
No sorry, but this was an “x” fail, the teacher should have put in the exam, if she takes 10 min cutting 5 pieces, how long it would take to cut 10 pieces or something, and the algebra wouldn’t have been wrong. We have to remember that the girl just only made ONE cut in a single wooden board to make it 2 pieces, if she made it three it will take the same amount of time to do the second cut.
Fuzz, if it takes 10 minutes to make one cut (to make two pieces), it would take 20 minutes to make two cuts (to make three pieces).
Jesus christ guys. Pls just think.
If u got 1 board and u have to devide it in 2 pieces u need to saw 1 time.
If u need to devide it into 3 pieces u need to saw 2 times so u will have to saw
Twice as long as u would have to saw when u devide into 2 pieces.
2×10: 20. Well done! Jebus christ
You’re invoking Jesus because he was a carpenter, right?
Comment WIN
Well he had some experience with nails.
Wow people are dumb, 1 cut = 10 minutes, so you have to cut another piece and thus 2 cuts = 20 minutes. However “Another piece of wood” doesn’t say how thick, nothing so technically this problem is unsolvable.
With the answer set to 15 minutes, it would take this girl 5 minutes to make no cuts at all… goooo school system.
The submitter is the real fail.
2 pieces=10 minutes
1 piece=5 minutes
5×3=15 minutes
1 piece = 0 minutes
1 piece is the board itself.
*can’t take any more*
*falls into a heap of laughter*
*
safety**remains a useless giggling heap of rotting flesh for the remainder of the night*
So if 1 piece = 0 minutes then 3 pieces = 0 minutes. x = 0, 3x = 0.
They’re both wrong.
^WIN!
Agreed. This is the best math ever.
Almost there…
Linear dependence sounds correct. The general equation for a line in 2d is however y=ax+b and not just y=ax.
What we have to begin with? At x = 0 y = 1 and at x=10 y=2, x being the time spent and y being the number of pieces. This leads to y=0.1x+1 if time is counted in minutes.
If we set y=3 and solve for x, we get x = (3-1)/0.1 = 20.
So it’s the ‘b’ that you’re missing. Anyway it would be great to get 3 pieces in 0 minutes, so f*** the ‘b’
No, no, what! has the better math. See, the answer is always 0. This makes it so much easier to do math. *uses what!’s math to figure out the balance of her bank account* Oh. Well sh!t.
“… saw another board INTO 3 pieces”
Reading the question FAIL.
1 piece of what? It shouldn’t take you any time to cut something into one piece.
Wrong, it says “Saw a board”, not “Saw FROM a board”. Therefore it is understood the question means taking a simple board, and making 1 cut to turn it into 2 boards. Therefore taking a similar board and cutting it into 3 pieces should take 20 minutes, IE: 2 cuts.
There’s no hope.
I guess he might provide a widdle bit of hope?
OB Two? My brain hurts.
Safety dance? ::dances because she wants to::
*leaves his friends behind*
Wouldn’t OB Wan just cut it with a lightsaber? Wouldn’t take HIM 10 minutes ;P
win^^
I’ve been sayin’, Marie needs a sharper saw.
OK, so say it takes Obi Wan 10 seconds to cut a board into 2 pieces. Assuming his rate of cutting does not vary, how long would it take him to cut the same board into 3 pieces?
How do you cut a piece of wood into one piece?
You can’t, so please ignore your second and third lines, replacing them instead with:
2 pieces=10 minutes i.e. 2 pieces are created by making one cut.
3 pieces= ? i.e. 3 pieces are created by making two cuts.
Each cut takes 10 minutes.
Total amount for two cuts=20 minutes.
Cutting a piece of wood into one piece? Sort of like the sound of one hand clapping, isn’t it?
wow…the submitter is right…one cut= 2 pieces = 10 minutes per cut
so, two cuts = 10 minutes per cut = 20 minutes to get three pieces
Yeah.
More mathematically-phrased explanation:
For making cuts through a board,
if x is the time it takes to saw through it,
x isn’t a function of the board’s length.
It’s a function of the board’s width.
No matter how many pieces you cut a board into (i.e. reducing its length), you will not affect x.
“The submitter is the real fail.
2 pieces=10 minutes
1 piece=5 minutes
5×3=15 minutes”
Wow only in America would it take 5 minutes to do nothing at all.
Hahaaaaaaaa!!
DDD
Only if Teamsters were doing the cutting.
Well they have music publishers who are victims of theft every time you download an album that they did not have to record on a CD. And this makes perfect sense over there.
You’re American, huh?
I know right? Americans are a real fail, i love to see their stupidity all the time, they are like the clowns for the world.
Octavio == Bigot fail
You can’t really generalize like this. But since most of the internet is in english, and americans do speak it, it seems, in general, that they are mentally challenged.
Trust me, you would find the same amount of fail on a spanish, chinese or arabic forum/website. To name some I’ve witnessed.
Jon == logic fail
Jon == Bigot fail
Yes, because it’s bigotry unless it’s about Americans.
Then it’s fine.
um, making assumptions about any nationality is bigotry.
^^==IRONY FAIL
Of course Arabs don’t fail. Except that they blow themselves up for an imaginary friend.
WIN
….Nah,Just a few of us Muslims misunderstanding the Quran..
u were born cause ur parents didnt want to put their clothes on again…
naahh i was born because my father got tired of the whore of your mother
Anti-Americanism is the fail of the world.
The dumbest people on the planet are the only people that think Americans are stupid.
You, YOU, are dumber than the average American.
Well I don’t know… Obama ordered the murder of a man recently. He did not let a court evaluate if the assassination was justified. Which means he can kill who he wants and nobody has anything to say about it.
The only other countries where I’ve seen this happen were China, Iraq, the USSR and a few others.
What did Americans do? “Meh, the guy’s a terrorist so it’s ok. Nothing to worry about, we’re not lead by a dictator”. That qualifies for stupidity if you ask me. But I’m just a dumb European and if my government did the same thing and I stood up against it that would make me a terrorist, so I must be wrong and the USA are the best country in the world as always.
Wooow. Are you stupid or what?
“1 piece=5 minutes”.
A board is already in 1 piece… how do you get your 5 minutes?!
Read the previous comments dumbass
Takes 5 minutes to buy it from the store! Duh!
How long does it take to buy two?
I can’t believe people don’t get this, it’s not a philosophy question. the thickness of the board is negligent(it’s assumed both boards have equal characteristics) This teacher is obviously a woman, in order to cut a board into two pieces you cut it down the middle. You now have made one cut to make two equal pieces. In order to cut an identical board into three pieces, you make one cut a third of it’s length and one more cut through the middle of the remaining board. Making a total of two cuts. If one cut only took you 10 min, then the next cut will only take you another 10 min, for a total of 20 min. if you were to want four pieces you would need three cuts for a total of 30 min. There is a series TIME = (PIECES – 1) X (10 min). IF you wanted one piece then you would make no cuts and the total time would be 0 min. If you wanted two pieces there would only be one cut , total time would be 10 min. Because you already have one board, you do not need to make any cuts to have one board.
If you are making boards from glue and wood chips and it takes you 10 minutes to create two boards, then it would take you 15 minutes to create three boards.
4x4x4 board, one cut of 10 minutes to two 4x4x2 boards, one more cut of 5 minutes (because you’re cutting half the distance) to leave two 4x4x1 boards and one 4x4x2 board.
Though that’s taking the definition of board loosely, it’s still possible.
I’m pretty sure that if all three dimensions of it are equal, a better term would be “a block of wood” (or, alternatively, “a wood cube”).
I think we should sue the board’s thickness for negligence.
Says the guy who’s already posted about 20 comments on this entry.
Ah, Yes, Yes, but African Swallows are Non-Migratory
If you give me a piece of wood, I bet I can get 1 piece in less than 5 minutes.
17 dollars
Duh. It says just as fast. It should take 10 minutes.
LOL
THAT’S WHAT I THINK TOO!!! No one else got that!
I thought I was taking crazy pills reading all this saw cut bullsh*t
It says “works just as fast”
Fuzz
catwoman
Melissa
Dean Kittycat
wayne
Robster90
FPD
Lolwut?
You all fail!
As a teacher myself, the number of people who aren’t getting this is making me totally depressed.
Including the teacher? It is obvious everyone makes mistakes, but the problem usually starts with the educator, not the ones to be educated.
On the other hand, dumb kids probably went home happy with their first ever A+ in math
I agree; it sort of makes you want to cry, doesn’t it?
As a contractor, I want all my competitors to do their bids using this teacher’s math.
In reality, as an true old-school carpenter, I’d probably show them their mistake.
And, would somebody PLEASE get Marie a sharper saw!
Folks, you can’t cut a board in 1 piece — it starts out that way. So 2 pieces = 1 cut, 3 pieces = 2 cuts, etc.
But where did that one piece come from?
IT WAS CUT FROM A LARGER PIECE!
No,that one piece is a F*cking tree
Does this mean half the people here were in Mrs Fifteen’s math classes?
To get 2 pieces of wood from 1, you only have to cut once, and to get 3 pieces, you cut twice. Therefore, you do NOT divide 10 by 2, nor do you multiply the result by the number of pieces being made. You MULTIPLY the time it takes per cut by the number of CUTS being made to get the total time spent cutting. If you still don’t get it, go laugh at an lolcat and stay away from society for a while.
For all of those who are still confused and think that 15 min might still be the right answer, think about it like this: If it takes 5 min per piece (10 for 2 and 15 for 3), then it should take 5 min to cut a board in to one piece. As far as I know, every object in the universe comes in at least one piece and does not require anytime to make it that way.
Then where’d the board come from? Did it just magically appear? Or are there 1 piece board trees somewhere in Africa?
…Duh,Trees….and we’re talking about the piece retarded and bad-sawed Marrie has.
Warning, bit of a rant here;
Both a real-life logic fail and a question phrasing fail.
If you cut a board into three pieces of equal size (or making similar cuts) then it will of course take 20 minutes.
However, if one were to saw a square board in half, then take one of those halves and make a cut perpendicular to the previous cut then it would take half the time of the first cut.
Of course this is only the case for a board that starts SQUARE. If it was rectangular then that flies out the window. Not to mention, the question fails to specify which is the case.
This question doesn’t actually belong in this kind of maths anyway, because looking at all the other perfectly reasonable explanations made by people more sensible than the teacher, the equation used DOES NOT LOGICALLY APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD. It pretty much required Violation Of Common Sense.
The question would have been much better applied to something else, such as, say… “Marie makes A Y. It takes her Z minutes to make A Y. If she works at the same speed, how long will it take her to make B Y?” where Y is whatever random object they choose, Z is the time taken and A and B are the numbers of said objects. This seems much more like common sense and is much less likely to fall into You Fail Logic Forever.
/rant
Wow, that question’s really stupid.
Not stupid at all. It gives a visual reference and infers. Only people who overthink and try to appear more intellectual fail by not reading and using the intended picture sources.
The question shows a 2×4 looking board. It shows a Handsaw being used to cut a length from a 2×4, which is a common sense and common use in daily life for most people. We’ve all had a family member cut a length off of a board and should be able to relate to such an activity.
Now, the question states if Marie grabs ANOTHER board, we must presume it’s the same kind of board because it doesnt say a ‘different’ board, and she cuts it into 3 pieces what is the time?
This is a perfectly sound Logical question and response to the question.
Again, only those people trying to make arguement, sound more intelligent than they are, and/or desiring to fight the system just their own reason would suggest that this problem is illogical and worded incorrectly.
Were you abused as a child?
Sure it is. One of the biggest issues with the educational system in this country is that we do not push kids to think about real world implications. This goes for math, language, science, etc. I would be damn proud if I had a kid that could think of the question in more than one way. “Over-thinking” is a term that is overused. Yes, it is possible to over-think things, but it’s usually that the people writing the questions have a programmed logic that was forced on them when they were growing up.
As for the question, if you take into consideration the accompanying graphic, the “board” is nearly the size of the handsaw. If it takes Marie 10 minutes to cut a board that small then she is cutting very slowly. Even if you ignore the proportions in the graphic, 10 minutes is a long time to cut something and you would have surely slowed down for the second board (especially on what would now be your third time cutting). The energy expended to cut the board had to come from somewhere according to the current understanding of physics. The situation itself is absurd and does not teach a child how to apply math to the real world.
Now, if you take “IF she works just as fast” literally, and chose to ignore biology and that pesky conservation of energy thing, then there is just one interpretation of “how long will it take her” which is 20 minutes.
Questions like this make people hate math and not “get” story problems. And those who end up loving math are in for a big shock when they have to apply math to the real world, especially if they have to learn to write a formal proof or be able to program an algorithm. This is also why people actually play the lotto and can be so easily lied to with statistics. It also sets people up to be incapable of understanding things like logic, philosophy, economics, and law (the last two being especially important to the average joe).
The same thing happens in physics when you do falling body equations. They “simplify” it for students because they assume that a silly thing like friction on regular shapes would be too complicated. Of course nothing that 99.999% of people will experience that would be useful to calculate has negligible friction.
Of course this also means that most stupid people can’t be entirely blamed for their stupidity.
If this class were a Math course on thinking out of the box, and the teacher asked if 20 minutes could be the only answer and a kid came up with 1/2 the snarky comments on shorter time periods. Sure.
I’d give them an out of the box comment as well.
But math is math. It’s meant to give you the ability to process from discovery to conclusion and result in the correct answer.
If you were asked what is 2+2=?
One student says “4″.
A snarky student, being ‘smart’ said 3, if I hide 1.
FAIL.
This is not the point of a math class. That is reserved for philosophy and other classes which are to house that form of thought. Coming up with your own out of the box thinking, in the wrong time and wrong context might be why the ‘C’ math students working on the roads can’t ever get the roads done correctly or in the time frame they declared it would be done.
Good going supporting that sort of mentality. At least I have someone to blame for supporting that kind of conceptual thought in a class that it not meant for such.
Math is the primer for becoming a very good Computer programmer. Once you have mastered the mental processing, you can think out of the box and come up with ‘out of the box’ scenarios that might just work.
I did however give a description up the forum a bit, about a teacher and the ‘painting a room’ scenario. The teacher wanted it done a specific way and to show the work. Another person made a comment about a more simple way to do the problem. That’s great for double checking yourself, but if the teacher is trying to get you to use 2-3 methods to find the same conclusion, then you must show the processing for those steps. If I am teaching and I ask for a simple process and a student uses a more difficult process to get there. If they show a grasp of the mechanics… PASS. Out of the box usage in context to the course is GREAT…
But don’t get philosophical with a Math teacher on a problem that has an example and is simplified to be the most basic reply.
Wrong class and wrong time.
To those who don’t get it…
If the question had been “It took 10 minutes to make 2 pies. How many to make 3?” then the 10/2 = x/3 equation would be corect, because x would be individual *pies/pieces*.
In the example given, though, the work is not per piece, it’s per *cut*. One cut = 10 minutes, so two cuts = 20 minutes.
Yea. As a former math teacher when I saw this I immediately got 15 because I recognized this as a typical ratio problem. 2/10 = 3/x.
The problem should have been reworded to say:
If it takes 10 minutes to make 2 cuts, how long would it take to make 3 cuts?
But that is NOT what it says/asks.
Is that why you are a former math teacher?
Just because you got the wrong answer you think they should change the question so your answer is correct?
I am a former teacher because I could not support my family on a teacher’s salary. Also, a teacher’s salary is based on the number of years employed and not on quality. There is no incentive to provide a quality education other than your own passion. And passion doesn’t pay the bills.
You’re thinking of the wrong kind of passion.
If you ask Jesus passion gets you killed.
I am a Math Major. I substituted Math classes for 2 school districts. I tutored Math students from 1st grade thru college level calculus.
Your credentials are marred by the fact that you saw a ratio problem on a time/rate problem.
If it was worded that Marie took 10 minutes to cut 2 Pieces of wood, How long would it take her to cut 3 pieces from another board. Then the picture showed a long 20 ft board with 2 pieces of board cut off from the main piece. You would have guessed correctly on a ratio of time/cut. But No the Picture shows 1 piece cut and says 10 minutes to make 2 pieces. So it was Time/Cut question.
Thus a new board cut into 3 pieces similar to the way the picture shows, would be 2 cuts.. 10/1cut=x/2 cuts
Ratio is set and served.
As most GOOD teachers would describe to their class. Look at the picture for the relevant nature of the question. Don’t make presumptions on your own.
you’re all talking about math in your free time
fails all around
Proud to be an ignoramus = fail
Talking about real-world applications of a timeless and invaluable subject in our free time = enormous win
The teacher still fails
being a douche without a sense of humor = fail
using failblog as a jumpoff for an intellectual forum = fail
the teacher = fail
Either way thats a hell of a long time to cut a board in half,
must be a dull saw.
Excellent point.
He said a dull point.
a second fail here is that it marie 10 minutes to saw through a board
a third fail here is that you left out the word “took”
Pretty silly of you to say that if you don’t know how wide the board is.
I think I may understand now where so many people are failing to understand this fail. I think they are possibly reading it as “It takes 10 minutes to cut 2 pieces, how long does it take to cut 3 pieces?” Which would also account for the 5 minutes=1 piece logic.
But as has been mentioned before, that is not the question.
(I still think my graphics were wonderful, therefore I shall copy-paste!)
This is a board: ======
you cut it in 2: ===|===
Took you 10 minutes to make 1 cut.
Take a new board: ======
Cut it in 3 pieces: ==|==|==
Took you 20 minutes to make 2 cuts.
You do not need to post your graphics again, sir! I understood the problem. I just was trying to see where everyone else who failed was coming from. If you notice, I was the one who called your graphics wonderful! But thank you anyway.
I did! And I knew you got it! But since you called them wonderful, I gave you another taste… Who knows? Maybe you’re a scouter for a graphic design company or a Hollywood agent!
We are doing quite a bit of board cutting in Avatar 2, and my animators just can’t seem to get it quite right. I would like to offer you $600,000 to be a consultant.
It takes your animators 10 weeks to perfectly animate a board being cut into 2 pieces. If they work just as fast, how long will it take them to animate a board being cut into 3 pieces?
I also think your graphics are wonderful ::applauds::
The graphic next to the word problem itself is nice too.
The question is so simple, I had to read it three times to make sure it wasn’t a trick question. Now, for those who want a real brain twister: How many ways can we think of to make the teacher right?
Here’s one: The board is square. The first cut cuts it into two equally sized rectangles. Then, then next cut is along the short side of one of those rectangles. Assuming Marie’s cutting is always at a consistent and constant pace, this second cut will take half as long, and so the answer will be 15 minutes.
The final product is one piece that’s twice as big as the other two pieces, but that’s allowed, as the original problem always said “pieces,” and not “halves” or “thirds.”
Oh, and here’s another way: If by “saw” the problem really means “produce” (maybe through regurgitation or by turning a crank on a meat grinder), then the teacher’s answer and her table there could be correct.
Haaaa….very nice.
I thought up of those scenarios, but they don’t work with this question because you are given the constant “1 cut = 10 min.”
The teacher will always be wrong.
As a woodworker the real answer is 11 minutes.
5 min to pull out the workmate and set it up
4 min to get out the saw, extension cord and plug it in
1 min to measure and make the first cut
working at the same speed…
1 min for the second cut.
But, of course, we are not talking real world here, neither in the question, nor the marking.
I see where the teacher botched it. If you were talking about a square piece of plywood you could get 15 by saying: 10 for the first cut to cut it in half. Cut the second piece (Which is now half the width (given you cut it the shortest distance rather than the longer), so half the time) at 5 minutes.
The teacher over thought it. Or rather, removed some of the variables presented by the picture.
For a minute I thought the question didn’t have enough information for a firm answer. But the image kind of answers those lingering questions.
Though it could take 10 minutes to cut the board length wise (I mean, when’s the last time it took you 10 minutes to cut a board?) and less time width wise…
Poor question.
I can’t believe how many people FAIL to understand how the answer is twenty.
Me either. Please God, people — don’t try to help your children with their homework. You scare me.
The teacher was probably an elementary school teacher, or a math teacher with an english degree but because they passed the qualifyng exam they are able to teach math. This problem is not even math, it more of a common sense question because you dont need an equation to solve!
Actually, you do need an equation; it’s just such a simple one that you don’t even think about it.
Really, though, this is the kind of math problem that exposes our real-life tendency to have all the facts and miss the truth. Good curveball (though still a teacher fail).
Ok, This is kinda funny seeing this as a fail when ½ doesn’t understand. The statement about currint a 4×4 in 2 then a 2×4 in 2 again = 15 minutes is true, but in this situation it says another board so it is wrong. Now the cutting part… When you have to cut something entirely you need to use this formula f(x)=x-1 where x is the number of part needed and 1 is the initial cut that will always split any object in 2 so 2 part – 1 cut = 1. If you have to cut something partially like cut half an apple in 2. f(x)=x because you have to cut the apple in half then half again which means 2 cut. How many quarters will you get ? 2. This is if you ignore the ½ apple left. This is why this function only works for when you cut partially . Now if the kid needed 3 pieces of 5m out of a 30 meter long tree. It would require 3 cut because we dont want it entirely ( f(x) = x –> f(x)=3 ) If it was 15m he would require 2 cut because 3*5 = 15m so he needs it entirely lets use f(x)=x-1 —> f(x)= 3-1 —> 2. 2*10minutes = 20minutes
PS: I know english bad im a frenchy
Why can’t both answers be right?
This answer is absolutely correct:
This is a board: ======
you cut it in 2: ===|===
Took you 10 minutes to make 1 cut.
Take a new board: ======
Cut it in 3 pieces: ==|==|==
Took you 20 minutes to make 2 cuts.
But let’s say that you cut a square board (let’s say 4X4X1) into 2 rectangles and that takes 10 minutes. You then take on of those rectangles (4x2x1) and cut it in half. Since the board is only 2 units wide now (instead of 4) it would only take half the time to cut it. This would give you 3 pieces. The problem says nothing about cutting it into equal pieces.
I first loved math because of its definite answers (2+2=4) but now, as a math teacher, I love math because of problems like this (because my students look for opportunities to prove me wrong, and many times I can show why both of us are right!).
The second answer can be theoretically correct.
However, it’s a nonsense to assume it is correct.
See, the question says nothing about ratios or dimensions.
So if you start assuming ratios and dimensions, then you could also assume that the first cut doesn’t cut the board in half:
Take a board of 10×10.
Cut out a piece of 10×1 in 10 minutes (10 minutes to cut 10 inches)
Now cut that piece again but perpendicularly to the first cut (so cut through 1 inch instead of 10 inches, which should take 1 minute)
The correct answer becomes 11.
The point is, if you assume ratios and dimensions, you can consider any answer between 10 and 20 minutes as correct.
Which is why it’s best not to make such assumptions and just go for the most obvious: each cut is the same length.
I’m pretty sure the teacher did not even think about cuttin in half, then in half again, thus making the second cut faster.
She probably just counted the pieces instead of the cuts, like this:
2 pieces = 10 minutes
1 piece = 5 mins
3 pieces = 15 mins
The teacher is wrong based on the drawing. However, if the piece of wood had originally been a square, and each cut had to bisect a piece, then 15 minutes could be correct. (Then again if you are free to make any size piece, then I could probably scratch a couple slivers off with my fingernails in about 5 seconds.)
The question does not allow for complications.
Use a freakin power saw, it’s quicker. Or get the guy at the lumber yard to do it for you in the first place!
Some get that teacher a board and a saw, oh and a watch!
You should not be allowed to visit this website and make fun of stupid people if you are just as stupid as they are. For the love of god, some of the comments on this have been sickeningly dumb.
rage
WIN!!!!
The question is dumb… I can see why the teacher made that mistake.
Most of the tests I got in school were written by the teachers who gave them to us… so unless this was off a standardized test of some sort (which should have had an ANSWER KEY), then one assumes the teacher would have understood his or her own question and not gotten it wrong.
This is a Math Superstars question, you can tell by the stars to the left. I remember getting these back in elementary school. They were rated on difficulty, 1 to 5 stars, with 5 stars being the hardest. So yes, these are somewhat standardized, and they do come with answer keys. So either the teacher thought (incorrectly) that he/she knew enough elementary school math to solve it without the key, or this is a much larger-scale fail.
There should have been a clearer scan of the diagram. Both the student’s and the teacher’s answer COULD be correct. Though, judging by what is visible, the student is correct, and the teacher should at least somewhat familiarize herself with fourth grade curriculum before she is considered capable of teaching it.
THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS 42!!
But….what was the question? Hmmmm….deep thought
How many roads must a man walk down?
…before he has to start walking up?
I’ll check back in 5 billion years.
Who the hell takes that long to cut a piece of wood. Take a Karate lesson and get that s**t done in a second.
If she works just as fast to cut the board into three pieces as she did to cut the board into two pieces, then the correct answer should be 10 minutes.
Yes!
No!
If you work just as fast, could you cut 1,000 boards in the same amount of time it takes you to cut one board, or do you think you might have to work a teensy bit faster?
How fast can she cut the board into two pieces? 10 minutes.
How fast can she cut the board into three pieces? Just as fast.
I know, I know – I’m only half joking…but the way the question is worded, it can be argued.
I think a better argument is that the question is sexist because it insinuates that girls are slow when cutting wood.
So a more politically correct answer would be that even though Marie starts out slow when she cuts her first board, she is empowered by this new ability and able to work even faster on her second board to complete two cuts in slightly more time than it took her on the first board.
Therefore the answer must clearly be 15 minutes or you will be hearing from my lawyer.
not really, if it said ‘cut the other pieces just as fast’ then it would be arguable (in fact, then I would say it’s a trick question and the answer is 10). But it says ‘works just as fast’ – It’s placing a limitation on the speed of the cutter, but they still have twice the amount to cut. So, maintaining the same speed of work, it will take them twice as long.
Speed is a matter of distance cut divided by an amount of time.
Her speed for one board is
x inches / 10 mins
So two cuts
2 cuts = 2x inches / 20 mins = x inches /10 mins.
If “just as fast” meant that she made two cuts in 10 minutes, then her speed would increase from x/10 to 2x/10. That would not be “just as fast” but “twice as fast”.
I know you got it, but your point that it can be argued is wrong. It can’t. Not if you know what speed is.
ummm…the teacher is right. if the board is square, say 12 x 12 and it takes 10 minutes to saw thru 12 inches, then the next cut is only 6 inches if you go thru the other way
Yeah that reasoning works perfectly….except for the part where it mentions a NEW BOARD.
Brand new board. 12×12, 1 cut, dividing it in half, takes 10 minutes. You’ve cut through 12 inches in 10 minutes. You now have two boards that are 12×6. Then, take one of the boards and cut it across at the 6 inch width, dividing it in half again. You now have 3 pieces total, and since 6 inches would take you half the time as 12 inches, that cut only took 5 minutes. Therefore, 15 minutes.
There’s a little drawing next to the problem, it is not a square board.
I’m not sure the drawing is considered relevant unless the question says so. Maybe in American schools it is though.
To the people that are calling the teacher dumb, I bet he/she just skimmed over the question and only read the part “2 pieces”, “10 minutes”, “3 pieces” and took it as 1 piece = 5 minutes x 3 = 15 minutes. It’s not as dumb as it looks!
But you cannot cut something into 1 piece
This is the best answer that could have been given. 5/5
How can people not get this? You count the cuts, not the pieces!
Having said that, the question relies on some assumptions, ie that the second board is the same size and that all cuts are made in the same direction.
I think I see why this is rated 3 stars. Education fail.
Student should have taken into account the fact that he/she was answering a math question, and that math teachers come from a strange and perverse parallel dimension. All facets of reality other than the numbers and operations should have been ignored.
It’s depressing how many people are confused by this. It’s really not that hard.
1 cut = 10 minutes.
2 cuts = 20 minutes.
People – including the teacher – are either thinking too hard or not at all. EOS.
It’s just that the question is dumb, you might as well say “How long does it take to cut twice?”
No the question isn’t dumb; it’s actually the people reading it that are.
I checked, and even a first grader knows the answer to this question.
for every dumb ass out there try think a bout it. if u have something and u cut it once ur goin to have two so if u cut two times u get 3 bits.
so if any one can cut somthing two times and only have two things show me because u would of just brokin the laws of physics
I don’t know if anyone will trade showing you how to break the laws of physics for you showing us how to break the laws of grammar, but it’s worth a try I guess.
Ah, the nerds come out to play.
Well, it depends on how she cuts it…
both answers are technically correct, just a badly phrased question?
No only one answer is correct, and it is not the teacher’s answer.
This is a logic problem and seriously, how silly do you have to be to think that the teacher is right on this.
One cut takes 10 minutes to make.
Two cuts take 20 minutes to make.
No wonder the world is going to hell.
America is not the world, at least not yet. Thank you.
But are you really so stupid to think that the only people getting this wrong are Americans?
Seriously?
What a stupid teacher. She should be the student.
The question asks “if she worked just as fast…” so technically it should only take her 10 minutes because she’s working just as fast.
no. it would take her 10 minutes to make one cut, but it would take two minutes to make 2 cuts.
1 cut =10 min.
2 cuts+20 min.
3 cuts+ 30 min.
and so on…….
oops. *twenty minutes to make two cuts…..
sorry
*2 cuts=20 min.
3 cuts= 30 min
“Just as fast” — not faster, and not slower as an effect of change in circumstances.
= 10 minutes.
per cut.
I do not think you know the meaning of that phrase.
I’m pretty sure Marie would have to work “faster” to make two cuts in 10 minutes if it took her that long to make one cut the first time.
“faster” “just as fast”
lol
It says she works just as fast, not that she ‘cuts the new board just as fast’. Using ‘works’ in the sentence is stating that the cutter maintains the same speed of action — but they still have twice the amount of work to do. It’s like saying I maintain my speed of 1 miles per 5 minutes on a bike. If i pedal just as fast, it will still take me 10 minutes to go 2 miles, because I have to go twice the distance.
You are confusing time and speed.
Time is time.
Speed is made of time and the distance cut.
Her speed for the first cut is x inches / 10 minutes.
If she works just as fast, it means her speed remains unchanged (i.e. she keeps cutting x inches in 10 minutes).
So if she cuts 2x inches, it takes her 20 minutes. The speed is the same.
If it said she did the two cuts in the same amount of time then you would be correct. But it says speed (fast), not time.
OMG, SHUT UP ALREADY!
There’s no square board, the board to cut is drawn on the side of the problem an it is in effect an oblong board and very so in fact. So for all of you with the “Square board theory” (4×4) you fail, student win
Everyone is wrong. Its obvious it will take 25 minutes, clearly in the diagram its a given that the first board she cuts is pine, but the second board must be hickory, which will take 25 minutes to cut into three peices.
People teaching children are not smart.
In the US.
And thats why ‘mericans are not so smart…
The question does not specify that the ‘another’ board is exactly the same as the first board so it cannot be answered. No assumptions were given for answering the question either.
Actually, it would take 10 minutes to make _any_ amount of cuts. After all, the question states clearly that Marie would work just as fast. If she does job A in 10 minutes, and she works just as fast, then job B would also take 10 minutes….
Can she make 100 cuts in 10 minutes?
That’s awesome.
(I’m sure Jake still doesn’t get it though).
I do not think you know the meaning of the phrase “just as fast”.
Inconceivable!
Perhaps you should try this experiment yourself.
lol
My name is Jake E. Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to be cut in 3 pieces in somewhat equal or less than 15 to 20 minutes!
hahahahaha win^^
It says she “works” just as fast, not that she ‘cuts the new board just as fast’. Using ‘works’ in the sentence is stating that the cutter maintains the same speed of action — but they still have twice the amount of work to do. It’s like saying I maintain my speed of 1 miles per 5 minutes on a bike. If i pedal just as fast, it will still take me 10 minutes to go 2 miles, because I have to go twice the distance.
I realize you’re joking, but your joke confuses time and speed.
It says her speed remains the same, not the time it takes her to do all the work.
Meh, I can see how the teacher made this mistake. It’s a stupid mistake, but not failworthy. She is looking at two pieces and thinking two cuts, which if it was asking for the time for three cuts, she would be right, if the original was 2 cuts in ten minutes. The person being graded is right though.
If you really want to be tricky (and a d*** (that’s me)) about what’s not specified in the problem, it could take Marie however long she wants take to cut the board into 3 pieces.
It doesn’t say half, or equal parts at all, so if all she wanted was 3 pieces, she could cut off the tiniest slivers or corners in a couple seconds and technically get 3 pieces.
If it’s round then it might take her a little longer.
Or if she wasn’t worried about time at all she could saw with a nail file and go the rest of her life.
The real fail is taking 10 minutes to saw through a 2×4
|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
| |
|_______|
This is a board.
|¯¯¯|¯¯¯|
| | |
|___|___|
This is the same board cutted in half.
|¯¯¯|¯¯¯|
| |—–|
|___|___|
This is a board cutted in 3 pieces.
10mins+5mins=15mins.
Maybe that’s what the teacher meant? Or maybe she was drunk.
Whoops. You meant 10mins+10mins = 20mins, right?
No, I think he really meant 10 minutes + 5 minutes. If you accept that the board is shaped like a square (it’s not mentioned anywhere, but I’ll just run with it), the first cut will take 10 minutes. Now, to get a third piece, you only have to saw one of the halves in half, which should take 10/2 = 5 minutes.
IMPROVED GRAPHICS REPOST.
|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
|…………..|
|_______|
This is a board. (dont mind the dots.)
|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
|======|
|_______|
This is the same board cutted in half.
|¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯|
|——|……|
|____|___|
This is a board cutted in 3 pieces. (the dots shows that it doesn’t have to be cutted!
10mins+5mins=15mins.
Maybe that’s what the teacher meant? Or maybe she was drunk.
Well then, 20 would also be a correct answer since she didn’t specify how to cut it or what is the fastest way to cut it in 3.
Hmmmm… No, I’m still seeing two cuts.
10mins+10mins=20mins, right?
The length is shorter so it should take 1/2 the time.
Ummm… “cutted”?
Perhaps poster is of other language origin?
OH MY GOD ARE YOU SERIOUS
HAVE YOU NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN WRITE ‘CUTTED’ WHILST DRAWING ASCII PICTURES FOR FAIL BLOG!!!!!!!!!
cutted? wtf is wrong with people!!
Look at the drawing next to the problem
It’s not a
|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
|.…………..|
|_______|
board
It’s more like a
=====
board
Huh. I thought that there was some rule about math teachers having to know how to do math. Maybe I was mistaken.
Hah, teachers don’t have to actually know anything. They just have to know how to say “Ok class, 2+2=10. IN BASE FOUR.” I’m not a teacher, but I can do that.
Nice to see maths teachers can do fencepost fails as well.
I’m on the fence about that. (sitting on the n-1th poste)
Okay guys, this is what happened here. You must read the question carefully. It takes TEN MINUTES to cut ONE board into TWO pieces. It would take another ten minutes to make another cut into the same board.
What a lot of people seem to be thinking is that there are TWO boards that are cut in ten minutes, when it’s really one. And because it’s ONE BOARD being cut in half, if she worked THE SAME SPEED, it would take another ten minutes to make another cut. That is what happened.
You’re an idiot. The question clearly states “Another Board” meaning more that one board. Plus even even she was cutting into the same board the question would still equal 20.
And you’re calling me an idiot why? It doesn’t matter if it’s one board she’s cutting or two? I know I made a mistake in my explanation but it’s still the same exact thing. I still got the same answer as you. And I’m an idiot for, at first, thinking it was another cut into the same board? lol. IT’S THE INTERNET! Chill out.
Oh, and also, I see why I made the mistake thinking it was the same board. I saw the word “another” but only remembered the “her” part. It was a simple mistake. Either way, I won’t be responding to you again because I’m not going to get sucked into an argument over a comments board.
i believe the teacher was going for a proportion question here. it would be set up as 2/10 = 3/x. the x represents the time it would take to do three pieces. cross multiply and you get 2x=30. divide by 2 and x=15.
i get the logic in previous posts, but mathematically, if this was a test on proportions, the teacher has it in the bag. if a student answered this on the ACT, he/she would also have it in the bag.
No.
Mathematically, you are incorrect.
2 pieces/10 minutes does not equal 3 pieces/x minutes.
That is not a valid equation.
Why is it not a valid equation?
It’s only a valid equation if the ratios are both equal to a constant, which in this case they are not.
You cannot just divide two things and say they are equal.
The correct equation is (number of boards – 1) / (minutes per cut) = constant.
In this case: (2 -1) / 10 = (3-1) / x
x=20
Whoops. Wording fail.
(number of boards – 1) / (minutes of cutting) = constant
Of course, that’s assuming she is working “just as fast”.
(2 -1) / 10 = (3-1) / x = constant
x=20!
In math, “!” denotes a factorial. (“the product of a given positive integer multiplied by all lesser positive integers”)
4! = 4x3x2x1
20! = 20x19x18x17x16x15x14x13x12x11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1
Just a bit off, there, Pleet.
LOL… he was being expressive … not Factoral! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fuunny though
:)
I know, but the chance to both correct someone and help aim for a record number of comments was too good to pass up.
This problem nicely illustrates the trouble with word problems:
You actually have to understand the scenario you are positing to understand how the math is actually applied. Used to run into stuff like this all the time many years ago under two particular teachers. Then it went away for some years.
It reappeared– with a vengeance– with the advent of standardized “ScanTron”-type tests. Those were awful with both math and grammar. Seems most of those test were written by undergraduates or editorial assistants with lower grasps of grammar than the students that were taking the tests. Causes no end of problems, even today.
Everyone is wrong. Its obvious it will take 25 minutes, clearly in the diagram its a given that the first board she cuts is pine, but the second board must be hickory, which will take 25 minutes to cut into three pieces. Peace!
Sweet jumpin’ monkey fritters! Is this question really that difficult to understand??? I’ll admit I didn’t read every single post in response to this fail, because about halfway down I had to stop to slap myself in the face, but I’ll try to lay it out for you, once and for all:
1) Yes, it’s badly written. The question should have asked how long it would take Marie to cut another similar board into three pieces, if she sawed them at the same rate as the first one.
2) Honestly, the question really isn’t that ambiguous. Just as in physics class, you assume wind resistance to be negligible, in a simple question like this you assume that unstated variables like the dimensions, the size and direction of the cuts to be made, the type of wood and grain density, and the physical condition of the saw are the same as when cutting the first board. Anything else you can think of (dulling of the saw, gradual fatigue of Marie’s cutting arm, a change in humidity while she went to get the second board, proximity to Marie’s quitting time, etc) are assumed to be negligible.
3) “working just as fast” should be inferred to mean “working at the same rate,” and should not be interpreted to mean she can make any number of cuts within a span of ten minutes… because then you could just drop Marie in the middle of a forest and come back in ten minutes to gather your million board feet of perfectly cut lumber. In other words, one of the assumptions you should make is that Marie is, indeed, a human being, and cannot simply double her rate of work just because you’ve doubled her work load.
4) As stated by… somebody above, she’s not “making” these pieces of wood, in the sense of forming plywood from woodchips or something, she’s making CUTS in the wood, from which the pieces of wood are the byproduct. So if it takes her ten minutes to make one cut (thereby producing two pieces of wood), then since it requires two cuts to make three pieces of wood, how long would it take her to make those two cuts? *drum roll* That’s right, 20 minutes. No, YOU wait. Don’t argue; be silent for one full minute and think about it. Still think it’s 15 minutes? Go out, get two identical boards, saw one in half and the other one into three pieces, making sure you make the same number of strokes per minute, and time yourself if you don’t believe me. Then resign yourself to a life without much upward mobility, because you’re probably not bright enough to hold a more responsible position in the world.
tl;dr
Measure once, cut twice? Wait..
teacher’s right
2pieces=10 minutes therefore 5minutes per piece
3 pieces x 5minutes=15minutes
this is some basic math guys
It only takes one cut to make two pieces.
I really hope you’re a troll.
I think the phrase you are searching for is “incorrect math” not “basic math”.
basic math indeed…
It takes one cut to make 2 pieces
Apparently, you are wrong.
To cut something into two pieces, you need one cut. One cut = 10 min.
To cut something into three pieces, you need two cuts. One cut times 2 = 20 min.
Teacher: Fail.
Student: Win.
that teacher graduated from an online program for sure.
it takes 10 minutes to cut one board into two pieces – but after that, you’re all warmed up and ready for more cuttin action. The second cut only takes five minutes because you got the hang of it now. Go you! Cut like the wind!
The problem here is that the teacher was thinking:
It took Marie 10 minutes to saw 2 pieces from a board. If she works just as fast, how long would it take to cut 3 pieces from another board?
Teacher fail.
No, the teacher was thinking: This word problem is just window dressing for the numbers. I’m the teacher and I don’t need to read the words because I already know math.
Those not seeing the fail are this kind of physicist: http://xkcd.com/669/
The cake is a lie.
You, sir, win $1,000,000,000,000. But sadly, I don’t have it, so I give you a the internet X x/10+2 pieces of wood.
Wrong wording. If it was ” it takes 10 minutes to cut 2 pices” than the teacher would be correct.
ummm….the teacher is right…whats the fail…..10/2 = x/3; 10×3=30 = 2x; 30/2=15
Read the comments?
===I=== Count the pieces and the cuts.
==I==I== Count the pieces and the cuts.
Ten minutes per cut.
I do hope your trolling.
this is a public education fail…
f(x) = 10x where x is the number of cuts and 10 is a constant time since we know it takes 10 minutes to make a single cut.
f(x) = 10x
For all real numbers.
{x|x >= 0}
You’re not solving for pieces, you’re solving for cuts. You already know the time, it’s a constant 10 minutes.
So f(2) = 10(2) = 20minutes. But at least half of the people on here knew that already.
God, finally someone who is actually right.
what type of wood takes 10 minutes to cut in half? is it a mile thick?
She was using a “made in China” walmart saw. Probably had to use a new saw for each cut.
Petrified wood!
Really hard wood *wink*
Marie is a girl. She’s weak.
Awesome/true
The teacher is right in this question. Imagine the board is a 10 inch square, and it takes 10 minutes to saw through all, dividing it into two. The teacher did not ask for three EQUAL pieces, simply that you needed three total. If you took one of the pieces, and sawed in in half again, you’d have three pieces. It would only take you half as long to cut through the half board at 5 inches.
i don think a first grader could think this complexly im going 20 min is right
Look at the drawing next to the problem.
yes the board is not a square
I honestly think that’s just a piece of clipart, that doesn’t really count as a board, more of a dowel. The problem is riddled with issues – Considering the simplicity of this question, I believe lateral thinking was to be applied. Any moron who could add would think “another cut means 10 more minutes”. Either way, I can see the teachers point of view. The question should be refined.
This isnt a Philosophy class. This isnt a physics class trick question. This is a clip art showing a board and a saw, with another piece off the board. It isnt a very big board. True… could be a dowel. Yet, Marie may not be very strong either. If it took her 10 minutes to cut thru the board (Dowel) shown, then it did.
You must follow the example picture. There is no lateral thinking in Elementary/Jr High level math questions. It’s point of fact. I’ll assume this is a 4th/5th grade test, by the use of picture and the question given. My 6th grader had a question similar to this last year.
Thinking laterally is what gets your grades marked wrong. Making assumptions not given is wrong.
By assuming you can cut the width of the board you just cut, and it’s 1/2 the distance is an incorrect assumption.
Using the picture as exmaple it would take longer to cut/split the piece down the middle, instead of cutting off another piece as shown in the photo.
This teacher is an idiot and not following the standard guidelines for teachers in the education system. He/She should go take “Mathematics for teachers” and retake Math 306 fundamentals while at it.
Both classes explain to simplify the question and use the given pictures as example. To do anything else is to deduce the incorrect answer.
The question need not be refined. Only your ability to understand the given level of the question and it’s relevance.
It never specified that the board was a square, and it didn’t ask what’s the fastest way to do it. Even if she did, there would be no way of finding out without knowing the dimensions.
also if you read the problem correctly she is cutting a separate board
Of course. If she didn’t, the answer would be 10.
All you have to do is look at the number of cuts needed. The number of pieces is irrelevant. If it takes 10 minutes to saw through it once, then it’s 20 minutes to saw through it twice. (Twice because you need 3 pieces total). Of course that is assuming the second board is the same size and you are sawing the same way.
you got a point there.
As a friend of mine likes to say: teaching is a symptom
| | |
| | |
|_____|______|
| |
| |
To claify, the board would look like that. 3 pieces, the first cut in half takes 10 minutes, the second cut gives you three pieces and only takes 5. 15 minutes total.
Original speed : One cut = 10 mins
Double speed : One cut = 5 mins
Another board into 3 pieces at double speed = 2 cuts = 10 mins
Its sort of a trick question in that its 10 minutes for both scenarios. So both the student and the teacher is wrong.
It specifically said at the same speed…
It is in red ink so that means the teacher is right.
*are wrong.
WHY IS THIS COMPLICATED THE QUESTION IS HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO CUT 3 PIECES WE KNOW THAT IT TOOK HER 10 MINUTES TO CUT A PIECE IN TWO…..WE KEED ANOTHER PIECE SO WE CUT IT INTO TWO WHICH TAKES 10 MINUTES…..20 MINUTES TOTAL THE TEACHER FAILED AND SO DO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DONT GET IT
are you joking man? thats the correct answer but rediculous reasoning
people are making this very over complicated. its just a simple mistake, the teacher forgot that when you cut a board into 2 pieces you are not making 2 cuts.
any teacher worth their salt would realize the mistake and fix it.
Ah, but you said “worth their salt” which a disturbingly high percentage of teachers these days are NOT. My high school was basically a paid baby-sitting service where teachers taught very little and most students learned even less. I weep for the next generation.
I would hope so.
I am baffled by all these people who still can not comprehend this.
If my kid’s teacher did not understand the correct answer after having it explained to them, I would NOT want them to be teaching my kid.
Even so, teachers usually have an answer key for this sort of thing. Unless the answer key itself is wrong…
I cannot answer this question as it is against my religious principles.
good thing no one cares about your religion JEW!
Huh?
yeah because GOD DOESN’T EXIST!!! get over it you know it and everyone knows it…
So…so sad that there are 276 comments analyzing this fail.
I was just about to say something similiar but then I noticed that its actually 291 comments, well 292 now.
1 piece = 0 min
2 pieces = 10 min
3 pieces = 20 min
901 pieces = What does the timer say about the time!?
10 minutes for the wood chipper to grind the board into that many or more pieces.. hehe
:)
you would still have to cut through all length or width no matter how small the piece is, so FAIL YOU!
The thing is that teacher did not understand the question right. Cutting into 2 pieces means you have to cut it once to make to pieces from one. So cutting a board into 3 pieces means you have to cut 2 times. If it took 10minutes to cut 1 time, then it will take 20 minutes to cut 2 times (2x10min=20):
1 cut – 10min,
2 cuts – x min; (2×10)/1=20min.
Thank you for reading.
or….where it says “if she works just as fast how long will it take” … she manages to work…just as fast…for 3 cuts? answer. 10 minutes. *just to be difficult*
WTF is wrong with her that it takes ten minutes to cut a friggin board in half? Is she using her buck-teeth?
Chuck Norris could cut 3 pieces in 15 min
Chuck Norris would stare at the board and it would cut itself.
LOL.. Doh! I said the same thing before reading the rest of the post. LOLZ
Forget math, you people need to study English. Half the posts in here have misspelled words, poor grammar, or incorrect punctuation. Sadly, most the posts about the misspelled words, poor grammar, and incorrect punctuation have different errors in them!
Me gramer erors, nat mee,.,,
“Most the posts?” Hank doesn’t know s**t.
“Forget math, you people need to study English.”
This is a run-on sentence. Either separate this into two sentences with a period or use a semi-colon.
Forget math. You people need to study English.
-or-
Forget math; you people need to study English.
The old comma splice!
It’s a classic; no doubt about it.
LoopDoGG, sorry but Chuck Norris wouldn’t even have to cut the board. He commands it to be cut, and it follows.
Hank, agreed.
By the way, teacher is right. One cut (two pieces) takes 10 minutes, two cuts (three pieces) would mean twice the first; in other words, 20 minutes. Yay student. [:
No, no, the teacher is right.
If the board happens to be cylindrical.
It it’s a Mobius strip, all bets are off.
The advantage of the Möbius strip over the cylinder is that if you cut the cylinder into smaller cylinders then it still only takes N-1 cuts to make N pieces, but the Möbius strip always takes N cuts, so that it would take 15 minutes to cut it into three pieces.
I bet this was an IB teacher
bahahhahaha
Assuming the original board is an infinite ray (only one end point). Then, it would require two cuts for Maria to produce two boards in ten minutes. Three boards would require 15 minutes. The teacher is right.
Wut?
OK EVERYBODY, MY EXPLANATION IS GOING TO CLEAR UP THIS ANSWER ONCE AND FOR ALL. It’a sad to see how stupid we have become..
Ok. Math time.
-10 minutes to saw a board into 2 pieces
-How long to saw a new board into 3 pieces using the same rate of speed…
A few ways you can solve this.
1)Set a proportion.
—> 10 over 2 = x over 3 X IS THE TIME BEING MEASURED. X IS THE UNKNOWN IN THIS PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE TIME TO SAW 3 PIECES.
After the math is done, x=15 MINUTES.
2) For those of who don’t know how to do 12 year old math, here is the 8 year old version:
Step 1)10 minutes to saw 2 pieces WHILE WORKING AT A CONSISTENT rate of speed. 10 divided by 2 is=5. So it takes, 5 minutes, at the speed, to make 1 PIECE OF WOOD.
Step 2)At the SAME SPEED, how long will it take to saw 3 pieces? Since 1 piece takes 5 minutes to create, 3 times 5 = 15!
IT TAKES 15 MINUTES.
-Math Professor
you have set up the question totally wrong. It’s not 10/2 = x/3. You are not supposed to use the number of pieces. You have to use the number of cuts made.
10/1 = x/2. You are making a SINGLE cut on the first one, to cut a board into 2. ——|——-
Then to cut a board into 3, you make two cuts —–|—–|——-
Thus, 10/1 = x/2 -> x = 20.
Never been more proud to be Canadian.
Here is another reading of the problem:
An event occurs once in ten minutes. How many minutes pass before the even occurs twice? The answer is 20.
*event
Fail overdose
Thanks for that, Math Professor. Now you just leave that saw with us, and go sit in that chair over there. Maybe you would like a wet towel for your forehead.
No, no… Just sit down, old timer. We’ve got it all under control.
Math Profail. You are one really bored troll or you’re a middle-school kid trying to act cool. Either way, ubadbro.
-Troulle
Oh, the humanity.
Are you really a math professor? Oh, my. How long does it take to make it into 1 piece?
Math Professor… wrong.
Like the ‘former teacher’ incorrectly answered, You make the mistake of making your equation based on Pieces of board and not cuts.
The Equation is thus:
10 mins per Cut
10min/1 Cut=X/2 Cuts >> (2Cut) 10min/1cut=X
Cut’s cancel leaving
2 (10 min) = X
or X = 20 mins
A Math professor who doesnt know how to do 12 year old math.
FOR SHAME!!!!!!
I’m only an Adjunct Math Professor… shesh.
I REALLY hope you’re joking.
ALSO,
think of it this way.
10 minutes to saw 2 pieces right?
So, that means, it would take 20 minutes to create 4 PIECES at the same speed!
But, we do not have four, so cut the 10 in half, and make it 5 minutes!
SIMPLE ELEMENTARY MATH
Your answer is only correct if it takes you 10 minutes to cut 2 pieces of wood off a larger piece of wood (ie make 2 cuts in 10 minutes) to make 3 cuts then it would take 15 minutes.
However if Marie has a 1 metre long piece of wood (which is 5cm x 5cm in width and depth) and it takes her 10 minutes to cut it into 2x 50cm pieces. How long will it take her to cut another 1 metre piece of wood into 3x 33.33cm pieces if she cuts at the same speed?
Answer = 20 minutes.
I think the question is very poorly worded but I believe the answer should be 20 minutes given the way it’s worded.
This is what is wrong with the American school system. No wonder why you guys are following so far behind is worldwide mathematics scores.
plz tell me you are a troll. if you are really a math professor great gods the future generations are doomed….
Again Fail Math Professor….
You have cut 2 boards into 4 pieces and assume you can deduct time by the pieces. This question says another board into 3 pieces. A Single board, not 2.
Therefore it goes back to the 10 minutes per cut. Cutting 1 board 2 times using the same effort, cutting across the same axis, and at the same speed.
If the Question allowed two board to be cut at 10 mionutes per cut, how many minutes would it take to get 3 pieces. If you cut a board in twain at 10 minutes and then cut a second board in twain at 10 minutes… then you cut 3 pieces and 4 pieces at THE SAME SPEED. There is no removal of time for each piece. So 3 and 4 pieces would both be 20 minutes.
This would only work in the math used by the Invoicing people as they charge the 5 minutes for the 4th board to the account of the next client needing to buy that board.
The reality of the cut is that it takes 20 minutes to cut BOTH 3 and 4 pieces simultaneously and you cannot justify the loss of 5 minutes in realistic time measures.
Accounting is justification of productivity expense, NOT how long did it take Marie to cut those 3 or 4 boards.
You still have not expressed elementary math… Maybe Aggie Math…
hahahahahah
Therfore, IT TAKES 15 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!!
10 for the first 2 pieces, 5 for the 3rd piece!!!
10+5=15!!!!
Look, your math is correct, we can see that. But, stop looking at this like a math problem, it’s more logic geared. If 10 min is a full clean cut, 5 min would only be half a cut then. After 15 minutes she would have one piece completely severed from the whole and the left over only cut partially through. Give her another 5 minutes and she’d be all the way through (cutting that board in half, leaving two total) add then all together, 3 boards, but 20 mins later. But, I think you already know that and are just egging folks on. Like me who responds 5 days later.
I will call my friend Sherlock Holmes.
Surely he will know the answer
*flails*
Math Professor, it says it takes 10 minutes to saw the board into two pieces, which implies one cut. Not two cuts. Therefore, one cut takes 10 minutes. To saw a board into 3 pieces, that would imply Maria is making two cuts.
10 min x 2 cuts= 20 minutes.
Or you could argue that the cutting of the board into three pieces is a task requiring two stages.
First, she makes a single cut, taking 10 minutes, resulting in two uneven pieces – a short end and a larger piece.
Next, she takes the larger of the uneven pieces and proceeds to cut it into two even pieces, the same length as the short end from the first cut. This also takes ten minutes.
So, twenty. Thirty if she nips out to the loo in between cuts.
Math Professor, while you’re right, I believe the question was worded wrong so no one’s going to see that it will take 15 minutes to do so unless they knew this was a simple Algebraic equation.
The question is wrong because it doesn’t match your answer?
I don’t think that’s how this works.
Let’s just go with the question is what it is, and you and the halfwit professor are wrong.
I think it takes 10 mins to make 3 pieces if you bend the saw into an U-shape and then make the cut.
The teacher’s coffee fun is not much appreciated. Until now.
i cna tbelieve i read every comemnt o.o
1: What if Marie were to duel wield the saws?
2: Is Marie sawing wood in the kitchen? If not, why isn’t she in the kitchen
1: Ftmfw.
2: Again, ftmfw.
3. There isn’t even a three, but based on your previous answers, you still win.
Oooh… I just realized that you misspelled “dual wield.”
Meh. Whatever. It’s the thought that counts. (Not the teacher.)
mankind is DOOOOMED! I wish this was the question you need to answer to log on the internet.. oh the bliss..bb trolls
seems like the first FAIL of a FAIL to me
15 was a good answer alright. (20 too, depending how you cut)
Not much of a fail, really. As others have stated…
1) It takes ten minutes to cut a board in half. Let’s say it’s a rectangular board.
2) To cut a board into three pieces, you have to cut it once to make two pieces. You now have two rectangles.
3) To make the third piece, you cut one of those halves across, rather than lengthwise – this means half the amount of board to cut; or half the distance to cut – and thus half the time of the first cut. Now you have one rectangle and two smaller squares.
4) If you were going to make a fourth piece, you’d cut the other rectangle in half – taking another five minutes. Now you’ve taken twenty minutes to make four squares of board.
Let’s not say it’s a rectangular board.
Let’s say it’s the board shown in the diagram next to the question.
==> Teacher FAIL
Actually you should call it ‘student fail’. It’s obvious the answer is 15. There’s even an explanation below why. I have no idea how he come up with 20.
That’s because you’re retarded.
Nevada education systsem
Marie is a 2003 robot cutting machine doing everything the same/just as fast.
She has two identical boards on the line.
She cuts board 1 in two >>> 10 minutes later she’s ready for more action.
Here comes board 2 comes down the line and it needs to be in three pieces, she like, here we go again. Except now I need to make two cuts…
She cuts board 2 in 1/3 = 10 minutes later she’s ready for more action
She cuts board 2 into another 1/3 = 10 minutes later three pieces are on the line
__________
20 minutes of work
Marie takes a break, and thinks about the education she
received over the years that ended her on the line in the Board Cutting Factory, just outside Sioux Falls.
Exactly. Why did she get good grades only to end up in this crummy minimum wage job, when her slacker of a boyfriend’s off selling cars and making a thousand times as much money for the same amount of work?
And why can’t they buy industrial jigsaws in this craphole of a factory anyway?
Say the board size is 10′x10′.
I cut it once in 10minutes and I’m left with 2 boards:
Board 1: (5′x10′)
Board 2: (5′x10′)
I then take one of the already cut 5′x10′ boards and cut it again in half. Since I’m only cutting 5′, it would only take 1/2 the time to cut it the 2nd time compared to the 1st cut. (ie. 5 minutes)
In the end, I’m left with 3 boards:
Board 1: (5′x10′)
Board 2: (5′x5′)
Board 3: (5′x5′)
I’m left with 3 boards that took 15min to cut (10min + 5min) – that’s the only way I can see it taking 15minutes to cut. The question is poorly worded.
Both teacher and student are right. The question is just stated much too ambiguously. If you take on board and ct it into three equal pieces it does take two cuts, and hence 20 minutes. But, if instead you take a board, cut it into two pieces, and then cut that piece into two pieces, it takes 15 minutes.
Either way, the point of the question, probably, is to figure out boards vs. time, but cuts vs. time works just as well. So, as you can see from the multitude of viewpoints in here already, it is just too ambiguous of a question to have only one correct answer. The real solution to the grading problem is to either give everyone credit for that problem or remove it from the assignment/test/whatever it is. In my opinion, though, removing it and re-weighting the questions to keep the weight of it the same would be the most fair.
At least this gave us an interesting pedagogical debate… sort of.
The ambiguity only comes into play when you overthink the question, as pretty much everyone here is, and as the teacher has done.
You’re looking for extra meaning where there is none.
10 minutes to saw a board in half? What the heck was Marie using, a comb?
Thank you!!! All this arguing about the obvious logic fail and nobody wondered whether Marie gnawed through the board or rubbed it against the table edge to take so ridiculously long.
Lol yeah, I know what you mean. Suddenly a teacher fail turns into a useless and time consuming debate. :/ Oy, some people just need to lighten up.
Teacher DOES fail, however this question is worded badly. I think that’s why most people, including teacher, derrped so hard. Clearly below average intelligence is rampant in both schools and on comment sections of Fail Blog.
Yet the student got it right. I hope for this student’s sake that the parents and principal have better senses of logic.
The answer is 50. She’s working just as fast to cut the two pieces, but now she’s using a letter opener.
This is the worst fail ever.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
I AM THE HOLY BOARD INCARNATE. SON OF MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT. YOU WILL BOW BEFORE MY HOLY SAW
I understand this reference. I don’t think that’s a good thing.
You guys are all wrong. It would take ten minutes for the first cut. Then there would be a union required coffee break, so that’s half an hour, and then it would take 5 minutes of measuring, a cigarette break (let’s say 7 minutes there), and finally 10 minutes to slowly saw that board into three.
@fgh
The only right answer. If you have a square board of 1m x 1m and it will take 10 minutes to cut it in half ( = 2 PIECES) you cut with a speed of 6m/h. If you cut one of the pieces left over of 50cm it will take you 5 minutes to cut the final piece. So the answer is 15 minutes.
The thing is you can cut the board in 3 equal sized pieces for example 3 equal horizontal cuts. Or you can make 1 horizontal cut through the middle and cut 1 piece trough the middle. It never states in the question you need 3 equal pieces. So mathematical making the variable “cut” define the time is not doable because its not stated the pieces should be sized equally. If you cut the board of 1m2 in 1 x 10cm slice ( horizontally) and cut that piece vertically through the middle you only have to cut 10 cm. This will only take 1 minute. And the answer will be 11 minutes
Wrong. If i take a board and cut it 10 cm from the edge of it, it would STILL take 10 minutes to cut through the board. It doesn’t matter how far down on the board you cut or how small the piece is you cut; it STILL would take 10 minutes for the saw to go through the wood. If you were to cut the 1 meter long board into two equal pieces and it take 10 minutes to cut, and then cut one of the 50 cm long boards in half in to two 25 cm long pieces, it would still take 10 minutes to saw through the wood. 20 minutes is the correct answer, regardless of whether or not the board is cut in to equal pieces. It will ALWAYS take 10 minutes to saw through the board to create a new piece. You start off with one piece, then 10 minutes to saw two pieces, and another 10 to saw off a third piece. 20 minutes every time.
Problem should’ve been worded, “It took Marie 10 minutes to saw two pieces off of a board.” That probably would’ve worked better, considering the lesson the problem was apparently trying to reinforce (proportions). In that case, the teacher (read: grade book) would have been correct.
Do these books of problems not have editors?!?
They don’t — at least, not very good ones. Textbooks get rehashed every year, with only minor edits made for relevance. And in that process, it’s very easy to miss details that seem insignificant, but actually are very important, especially when there’s homework or tests based on them.
The problem is worded just fine. It’s relying on reverse interpretation to get to the correct answer (which is still 20 minutes, despite how all the know-it-alls are injecting too much extraneous detail). Had it said what it actually meant, it would have required no thought:
“It took Marie 10 minutes to make one cut in the board. If she made two cuts, how long would it take if she worked at the same rate of speed?”
Here the right answer…
Assuming that the board has the width x and the length y .
Also assuming that the first cut is parallel to the width of the board, and the length of the shorter piece is z.
So its takes 10 minutes to cut the distance x.
So now if z >= x , the shortest distance to cut is 2x. And so the solution is 20 min.
If z <= x, the shortest distance to cut is (x + z). And the solution is
10 + (z/x * 10) min.
The biggest distance to cut would be the diagonal of the longer of the first 2 pieces.
The length of the longer piece is by definition (y-z).
So die diagonal is sqrt(x² + (y-z)²).
So the total lenght is x + sqrt(x² + (y-z)²)
And the time is:
10 + (sqrt(x² + (y-z)²)/x)*10 min
And the final solution would be, some value between the smallest and the biggest of the 3 partial solutions. Because Marie could make any non-parallel cut, after the first one.
If the first cut wouldn't be parallel this problem would be way to complicated…
It’s a whale ^^
America, F*ck yeah!
This is the worst fail ever.
This is fascinating!
I love this question because it invokes different responses from different people. I’ve seen 3 or 4 types of answer so far…
There is an opinion (majority by the looks of it) that assumes each cut will take the exact same amount of time, which of course is only true if you make each cut along the same length/width.
Then there is another (second majority by the looks of it, but could be roughly the same as first one) that get a little confused with the way the question is worded and get one cut confused with one piece.
Then one (second minority) where it’s assumed that it’ll only take half the time to make the second and third cuts because the width of one of the two resulting boards from the first lengthwise cut will be halved. Of course this depends on where you cut it and how thin/wide/short/long it was.
So then you get another opinion (minority) that states the question is too vague.
It’s quite wonderful.
I’m sorry, maybe I’m missing the funny here. Are we just posting our kids incorrect homework as Fail now?
Dude, read comments before YOU comment, it’s a fail on the teacher, not the student.
There are billions of comments here, so how can you tell someone to read all of them? ‘~’ Besides, you ought to be able to understand a fail by the picture alone, not by the comments.
Looking at the picture, it could take even longer if the 2nd cut is made lengthwise. The word problem doesn’t contain enough information for any answer at all!
Don’t overthink it. Seriously. It’s an upper-elementary multiplication question, not a request for quotation from a contractor.
I suspect the source – this doesnt look like what a teacher would write in an answer script – regardless her “standard” – looks more like from a tuition teacher or someone unprofessional
…….. what?
why does it have to be a woman again?
Actually, both can be right:
for example, think that the board are sqare. the first cut make the board split into 2 rectangular pieces; the shortest edge is 1/2 of the edge of the entire square board. When cutting for the second time, if you cut on the short edge,
the cut is long only the half of the first, therefore it takes 5 minutes.
Obviously, the problem is understated, becouse it don’t say how the cuts are made. Therefore, the most correct version is the student one, so…. fail for the teacher.
graphic explanation:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3185608/board.jpg
If you’re going to get that complicated, you you also say that the cuts are being made with a circular saw and the time spent cutting is irrelevant. It’s the time taken to set up the cuts that’s important. This leaves us with the same 20 minute answer regardless.
The student obviously put way more thought into this.
However, in that case the teachers explanation would have to be
10 = 2 pieces
15 = 3 pieces
17,5 = 4 pieces
and so on.. (Length/2)
fail for the teacher anyhow.
I don’t think so because there is no way you can make your 3rd cut shorter than the second one (according to the drawing by neopard). The 4th cut could take 2.5 minutes, though.
Damn you auto advertisement audio clip. Some lady starts talking to me about disinfectants? I had my volume so loud; scared me. It was on the home page too. And i play a video and the ad clip comes on again? wtf. wtf? no…just no. failblog, step your game up
Uploader FAIL
IMHO
there is a picture next to the problem. Obviously you would be making an equal cut.
Smash board over teachers head, problem solved!
I agree. The issue with this is that the problem is poorly worded with not enough detail.
I can cut the board into three pieces in 15 minutes. If the board is 10″ square, then it takes 10 minutes to cut 10″ in half, cutting at an inch a minute. The the last board is 10″x 5″. Cutting at a rate of an inch a minute would only take me five minutes to cut through the five inches. 15 minutes.
I can cut the board into three pieces in 19 minutes as well. Take a 10″ x 10″ board again, cutting at an inch a minute, cutting from the center of one edge and stopping the cut at the exact middle would take 5 minutes. Cutting from the two opposite corners to the middle would take 5 squared + 5 squared = X squared. X = a little over 7″ and 7 minutes. So 5 + 7 + 7 = 19. It would take a little over 19 minutes.
wow.. there are so many stupid replies in here.. Those who still think the answer is 15 minutes, please realize that you are WRONG! And those who did not even get the ‘fail’, please read the comments first. This is officially the best ‘fail’ ever.. it brings out the ‘fail’ out of so many.. LOLZ..
So many comments, just because of one failed excercise? Holy crap!
Mostly from people trying to add excess complexity where none exists. Like Eric there.
*Weeps*
Ok.
One cut takes 10 minutes.
To get 3 pieces, you would cut the board twice.
10 minutes x 2 cuts = 20 minutes.
Whoooo!
This means tha she takes 5 minutes to saw it into 1 piece!
loool
I’m so tired that I caught the fail half-way through, but managed to forget and got caught in the logical fallacy by the end of reading it.
look read focus. cutting once takes ten minutes. cutting TWICE for THREE pieces takes 20 minutes. the teacher is wrong. failblog i hate you.
wait wait wait wait a minute….. it took her 10 minutes to cut a single board in half? i can do that with a damn coping saw in a minute, much less a hack saw or a hand saw. now the real question come up, what is taking her so long to cut this piece of wood?
My answer; Marie is retarded, and should not be playing with the tools in the first place.
Only way the teacher is correct is if they are saying that a piece is the bit you cut off and NOT the rest of the board left over.
So if the person cuts 2 pieces in 10 minutes then to make 3 pieces it would be 15 minutes. eg you have a 1 meter board and want to make 3 x 20cm pieces. You will have to make 3 cuts and you will still have a 40cm of board left over. So at the rate Marie is cutting at it will take 15 minutes to cut into 3 20cm pieces. Again, this only works if the leftover board isn’t considered a piece! This question is too ambiguous and therefore should be wiped from the exam paper.
Why would you make 3 cuts to yield 3 pieces from 1 stick?
If the peices you require need to be a certain size, then you would most likely need to make 3 cuts and you would have a bit left over that you wouldn’t consider a piece because it wouldn’t be the required size. Unless by some fluke that the piece of wood that you start with is exactly 3 times the length of the pieces that you require then it would only take 2 cuts. But how often does life be that nice to you? :p
WOW. 90% of the commenters FAIL at reading previous posts. Let’s keep going though! Close to 500!!!
That’s kinda’ my goal here.
No no no guys I got it. It took Marie 5 minutes to cut it into one piece because she’s a woman, and then she started cutting herself for another 5 minutes, and then her husband came out and beasted it in 5 minutes. 5+5+5 = 15.
It took this person 10 minutes to saw a board?!?!? Were they using a butter knife??? Oh it was a girl… nevermind.
The question is misleading, but this is what the prof was doing was using a simple ratio.
10minutes/2cuts=X/3cuts 3*10=30 30/2= 15 –> X=15 minutes.
The prof is not stupid, or an idiot, she just worded this badly. Though, apparently, all of the GENIUSES who are calling the professor an idiot probably were unable to figure that out. I would argue the wording is rather cryptic, and she could have made the problem a little more clear.
Also, to the people who are including the time it took to cut the first board and saying 10 mins + 10 mins = 20 mins, slap yourself in the face, and go carefully read the question again.
You, sir, are an idiot. Who said to include the first cut on the first board? As explained by many before, to get 3 pieces, you have to make 2 cuts. 1 cut takes 10 minutes. So 2 cuts = 20 minutes.
The question is not misleading, your ignorance is.
The proportional equation is (2 -1 ) / 10 = (3 – 1) / x
2 / 10 (!!!!!!DOES NOT EQUAL!!!!!) 3 / X
….*what the prof was doing was making a simple ratio problem
Thats just good teaching -_-. They were just showing the student where they went wrong, this was probably a mock test or something
…except the student wasn’t wrong.
1) On the picture it’s a timber stud or batten, not a board. Can’t be more than 2″ x 2″ if it’s in proportion to a normal handsaw.
2) What in God’s name is a woman doing wielding a saw?
3) Doesn’t Home Depot have a cutting service?
Another board = 1 board. Therefore using 1 board it would take 15 mins to get 3 pieces. The question never specified the pieces to be of same size which means all we need to do is half the original half to get the third piece. Thats how i see it when i read the question anyway. So both the teacher and the students answer is right, all a matter of how the question is interpreted.
_______ _______
| | | | | |
| | | 2 = 10 mins |___| | 3 = 15 mins
| | | | | |
|___|___| |___|___|
oh wells, diagram didn’t show up as i wanted. meh
Lets simplify this,
If it takes a Women 10 Minutes to Cut a Sandwich into 2 pieces. If she works just as fast
how long will it take a women to cut another sandwich into 3 pieces?
You should realise that the students answer and the teachers answer are, in fact, both incorrect.
If it takes 10 minutes to saw completely through the board, then it would take 5 minutes to make a cut halfway through. If Marie then made two cuts from the opposite end of the board, at an angle towards the first cut, she’d end up with three pieces, one of them a triangle…
She’s spend a bit more than 15 minutes due to the extended cut length caused by the angles, but she would in fact have cut the board in three pieces.
the comments are funny
Keep going past 500!
It takes 10 minutes to generate 2 pieces, which boils down to 5 mins per piece.
If she takes a fresh board and cuts it into 3 pieces that’s 3×5 = 15 mins!
It doesn’t make sense to measure it as time/board instead of time/cut, but who cares!
I meant to say of course, time/piece not time/board. But yea anyway
Clearly, the answer is infinity minutes.
If working ” just as fast” = “at the same rate of speed” then i guess the teacher would be correct. but…. improper wording may be interpreted differently.
Example: I can drink 10 beers ” just as fast” as my friend can drink 5 beers.
looks to me like the classic ton of bricks vs ton of feathers.
then again I might just be drunk.
“At the same rate of speed” as you put it, is still 1 cut per 10 minutes.
You can join the teacher in the corner with a DUNCE hat.
And just so there’s no hard feelings you can take a beer with you and I’ll turn my back and let you do whatever you want with the teacher.
yea, my bad, was thinking more about the wording as opposed to the correct answer, the grammar is bothering me more than the question itself.
Cut into two pieces = 10 min
3 pieces = 15 min
black people have been monitoring our missions
Math and logic fail.
Racism win, but unfortunately for you, Racism Win = Human Fail.
It took Marie 10 minutes to cut a donut into 2 pieces. If she works just as fast, how long will it take her to cut another donut into 3 pieces ?
And yes, the answer is 15.
Haha,
Yeah, I thought about that, and you’re correct.
Or your correct if it’s not something you are, but rather something you own.
The answer could be 20 minutes if Marie made exactly two cuts resulting in the creation of three, thinner donuts.
It could be 15 mintues, but only if you change the length of the cut she needs to make. Assuming a perfectly round doughnut (mmmmmmm symmetrical goodness!), then you would take x amount of time to cut it in half, thus 2 pieces. And yes, if you cut the same doughnut into thirds (like a Mercedes logo), you would be making three pieces in 1.5x. However, this is because you have changed the definitions. In the first situation, you had to make a cut all the way through the doughnut, arbitrary top to relative bottom. In the second, you only had to cut half the distance (assuming you cut along the radian from the center of the doughnut to the edge). Your question changes the distance that Marie has to cut, and I believe the most reasonable assumption and implication of the original question is that Marie is making cuts of equal length each time.
WRONG…
Here you’ve changed the length of cut. Donoughts have centers. by cutting into two pieces, you made 2 outside to center cuts and a 3rd piece only had to do 1 partial cut to 15 minutes of cutting.
Illogical use of visualization to the original problem…
——————————————–
Here is a line.
Takes me 10 minutes to cut this line into two pieces.
—————————— ————–
How long would it take me to cut another line into 3 pieces? (assumption is that ‘another’ is the same type of line as before)
————– —————- ————–
= 20 minutes
Now I have 2 lines broken into 5 pieces…
I cannot BELIEVE the amount of people in here that actually think the teacher was correct on this. I’m no mathlete, but this seemed pretty straight-forward to me.
I don’t get it but I get confused by even the smallest numbers.
Also, who the heck takes 10 minutes to saw that size of a board in half??? Was she using a butter knife?
Ha ha. 535 comments so far.
BMW WIN!!!!111!hundredandelebenty!!1
Hehehe
*squeeze*
the student had the right answer!!! making 2 pieces requires one cut, which takes 10 minutes. To cut the board into three pieces, takes two cuts. therefore it would take 20 minutes.
You’re a bit late to the party. Here, I’ll at least add another graphic representation for you
1 cut = 10 minutes = 2 pieces
==/==
2 cuts = 20 minutes = 3 pieces
==/=/=
Did Marie stop and take a dump while cutting the first board ?
if so then it might have five minutes of cutting each time and 5 minutes of crapping
its a fail bro. to make to pieces is only 1 cut. to make 3 pieces is to cuts. how can ppl not see that, f me senseless
what is the grammar fail? I’m not seeing it
oh! oh!~
I just proved all this board size and cutting method debate irrelevant! On the right side you can see a hand saw and plank (2″x2″ I’m guessing).
*Big Sigh*
Student was right, teacher was wrong. The question as stated implies that Marie is cutting the same distance through the board with each cut, keeping the time it takes to make one single cut a constant. If you start with one board, then make one 10-minute cut through the board (which results in two pieces of wood), then you need to make a second cut to make a third piece. If you assume that Marie is cutting the board along a parallel line and through the same thickness of wood (again, a perfectly reasonable assumption given the question), then that 2nd cut will take another 10 minutes. Total time = 20 minutes.
All these alternative “trick” and “clever” answers (start with a square, cut in half, then cut the half into 1/4th the original size, etc.) are just that – exceedingly clever and tricky answers to the original question. Nice creativity, and I hope that kind of logic will help you out in the future. But it is the definition of “over thinking” in this case.
The failed algebra that concludes with 15 minutes being the correct answer only works if Marie is creating a piece of wood from scratch. If it takes her 10 minutes to CREATE FROM SCRATCH USING WHATEVER MATERIALS SHE HAS AT HER DISPOSAL two boards, then yes, it would take her 15 minutes. Alternatively, if the details were that it took Marie 10 minutes to cut off two pieces of wood from the larger piece (ignoring the fact that the larger piece that remains is, in fact, a piece in itself), then it would also take her 15 minutes to cut off a third piece – again, FROM THE LARGER PIECE, and ignoring the fact that the remaining piece would technically be a piece as well.
But again… all that is logical gymnastics that, while impressive and useful in some situations, are completely wasted on this question. The bottom line is that, given the context of the question and all the who/what/where/when/why it was asked, the most reasonable assumption to be made is that Marie is making the same length of cut each time, thus keeping her cutting time a constant and the correct answer 20 minutes. All the other displays of logic (fuzzy and otherwise) that have appeared in these comments are nothing more than examples of how the truly creative and/or the truly uninformed can MAKE their answer be whatever they want. All they need to do is muddle up what the question is actually asking, and redefine the parameters to fit their desired answer.
I personally believe that Occam’s Razor should still apply, however. It should be assumed that Marie is making the same length cut each time.
I have never wanted to punch my computer screen as much as I have reading these comments. You people are beyond dense. I know years of schooling have convinced the dumb in our society that anything a teacher says in red ink is correct, but think independently about the real world scenario for FIVE SECONDS before you come in here backing her up. The teacher is WRONG. Stop thinking about the numbers and picture actually doing it in your mind.
Assuming the picture relates to the question, taking into consideration the level of math test this is, and that when there is not enough information in a word problem you take the most straightforward approach (No one ever takes wind into train/speed problems for good reason!) then one must assume they are making the same size cut on the same piece of wood. THAT SAID,
ONE CUT MAKES TWO PIECES. ONE CUT TAKES TEN MINUTES. IF YOU WANT A THIRD PIECE YOU MUST MAKE ANOTHER 10 MINUTE CUT.
for the love of GOD THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.
SHEEPLE!
rage.
Wow, that problem is horrible.
However, the teacher is wrong. If it takes 10 minutes to make one cut, and you want to make 2 cuts, then it is 20 minutes. It really is that simple. The size of the board means nothing in this problem.
Love the long answers: here is the short one:
to get 2 pieces you cut once. to get 3 pieces you cut twice. 1x cutting = 10 minutes * 2 = 20 Minutes. this is probably from elementary school, funny how people try to answer this simple question by writing so much. the teacher made the mistake that she (yes im beeing here abit sexist but look at the handwriting… nothing to do that its math lol) simply thought instead of cuts, about the pieces themself. 1 piece = 5 minutes 2 pieces = 10.
Actually… I think I figured out how the teacher may have been correcting…
1 cut = 10 minutes = 2 pieces
take a NEW PIECE OF WOOD TO CUT
you end up with 4 pieces in 20 minutes, so the teacher decided to divide the second pieces time in half (for which I agree is an idiotic solution and lacks complete logic.)
then again.. it does say “another board” so it looks as if the teacher miss-read his/her own question.
the above question wasn’t marked.
649th
Some teachers are just plain stupid. I had one try to “prove” to me that lave isn’t melted rock, by holding a common quartz stone over a candle. Like that would generate enough heat….. What a moron.
This problem is poorly worded. The meaning can be slightly ambiguous. It’s trying to teach proportional relationships. Technically the student is supposed to set up the problem using the equation: 10/2 = v/3. In this respect the teacher is right, the answer is 15.
However using logic and looking at the cuts, she only made 1 cut in ten minutes, so it would take her 20 minutes to make 2 cuts. In this respect, the student is right. But the problem didn’t say “how long did it take her to make a second cut?” It asked for a proportional relationship.
It’s a poorly worded problem that doesn’t make any sense, but I think the answer the book and teacher were looking for, is 15. They want the student to use specific equations. This is a case of over thinking the problem. It’s an example of proportions, nothing more.
Think about it this way. Let us reword the problem using the same numbers. “If it takes Adrian 10 minutes to drive 2 miles, how many minutes does it take him to drive 3 miles?”.
The answer is 15. The teacher wasn’t wrong. The part that’s confusing everyone is that this word problem doesn’t make logical sense.
The teacher IS wrong and you are wasting your time.
Really.
Whaaa? Why can people struggle soo much with this? (———–insert answer here)
Sure we can re-word the problem! Yeah! And come up with a completely different problem and THEN insert the “correct” answer from the previous problem into the new one, somehow proving to ourself and other troglodytes that “teacher is right!..durrrrr”
At the risk of feeding the troll…distance and duration are not the same thing. When you put them into the same problem you get a completely different answer. The original question asks for “how many cuts” where one cut took 10 minutes to split one board into 2.
One cut makes 2 boards, takes 10 MINUTES ( let x = time to make one cut)
Two cuts makes 3 boards…[ 2(x) = minutes to cut board into 3 pieces, when x= time to make one cut ]
The only way the answer could be 15 is if Marie worked twice as fast to make the second cut(she worked JUST as fast – ie. the same speed). Nowhere in the question is it stated she worked faster – and cannot be assumed.
Ozymandias – I offer math tutoring for $20 / hour. I think we could work through your difficulties in two 3 hour sessions. I will discount the price by not charging for one session! For you I can charge only $220! Message me back for availability.
So the teacher got the right answer – it is the problem that was wrong.
The teacher is wrong according to the question asked.
You can’t just reword the problem and expect the answers to be the same.
If I were to reword the problem using the same numbers to “If it takes Mary 10 months to give birth to 2 babies, how many months would it take her to give birth to 3 babies?”, would you give the answer as 15 months?
I need someone to write a program that lets me punch you thru standard TCP/IP.
HOW YOU SOLVE A WORD PROBLEM CHANGES BASED ON THE WORDS.
Round the decay
Of that colossal logical failure, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
So leaving the wood alone, intact and in one peice takes 5 minutes?
Proof by contradiction. <3 your explanation most of all.
piece
WIN!
actually it looks like maire is cutting a much longer piece of wood into about 12 inches or so, so even though its not in the text the diagram can state that it took her ten mins to cut TWO 12 inch pieces off a much longer piece of wood so it took FIVE mins a cut so three pieces would equal 15 mins………but there seems to be a bunny with a pancake on its head so all that was said is irrelevant
It depends on what you mean by cutting three pieces of wood.
If you’re cutting off three pieces, like this:
==|==|==|=====
Then it takes 15 minutes.
But, if you’re cutting it into three pieces, you would do this:
==|==|==
And it would be 20 minutes.
but does it, really…
15 or 30? as each cut takes 10 minutes, whatever the size of the piece is…
exactly Ivan!
(insert cross cheek slap here)
something tells me im gonna hear about this thread like 6 months down the road from my IRL troll moron friend.
lol
Ozymandias,
What you did there was change the question so that the answer = 15. You did not in anyway explain why the question that was actually asked = 15, or even why it was an illogical question. It wasn’t illogical at all. It was simply stupid in that it didn’t describe the mathematical equation that the author intended.
To put in another way, using your completely-different-question technique, it’s as if the question was “20 + 5 = ?” and the student correctly answers 25, but the teacher responds that the answer is 15 because this is a subtraction exam, so you should subtract.
I hate to break it to you, but if you think the answer is anything BUT 20 minutes, then
YOU ARE A MORON!
Based on the question and the picture, there is ONLY one answer, and it is 20.
If you don’t agree, then you should find one of your friends who has a brain and ask them.
The real question is why does Marie want five equal lengths of wood. Is she making a pentagram? Is she a WITCH!? BURN HER!
Interesting observation. Normally, I’d be all for burning her on the spot. But the question does not state that the resulting pieces are of equal length. In fact, it implies that they aren’t since she is cutting two different boards that are presumably of the same original length.
QED the answer is 15.
You’re a moron.
The answer is 20.
Really? QED? What in your statement proved that it was 15 minutes? There is plenty of information on this page explaining why it is 20 minutes.
You really shouldn’t use QED when you haven’t proved anything, and especially not if you are wrong.
But here’s another crazy example of how the answer could be 15 minutes. It is silly and the wording of the question does not support this, but if the “board” was a circle, then to cut it into 2 segments would require 2 cuts : ∅ (circle showing 2 cuts required to make 2 pieces). Then it would only take 1 more cut to make 3 pieces.
Ah, so sorry. I forgot to include the international symbol for sarcasm in my post (the a sarcastic horse emoticon, that is).
See my previous post, a few posts up, for my actually position on this matter.
My apologies. There are just so many self-assured people with the wrong answer and faulty logic…
I see the sarcasm now, and the whole “QED” thing is obviously a pet peeve of mine.
And I think we should only burn the witch if she weighs as much as a duck.
Usually you don’t cut boards boards length-wise but that could explain why it is taking her so long. I think the presumed cut is across the width of the board.
Actually it’s a simple grammatical error: The question states “…saw a board into 2 pieces…” meaning taking a single piece and make a single, 10 minute cut to create 2 pieces. Now to “…saw another board into 3 pieces…” means take a different board and make 2 cuts, thus creating 3 pieces. At 10 minutes a cut, that means 20 minutes.
Now, if the questions said “…saw two pieces FROM a board…” that would mean two cuts, at 10 minutes total time. Then “…saw 3 pieces FROM another board…” would be 3 cuts at 15 minutes total time.
Makes no difference the size, or shape of the board or if the pieces are equal sized or not. Those are complications outside the conditions given.
The problem basically states “it took 10 minutes to get 2 pieces of wood. How long will it take to get 3 pieces of wood?” The answer is 15.
As many people have already said, this is a proportional relationship. A lot of you are taking the act of sawing a board too literally.
Also, all these net geniuses that are arguing for 20 are wrong, because the teacher probably got the answer from a teacher solution book! I don’t know of any teacher that doesn’t use a teacher solution manual.
The teacher would look at the students written answer, then compare that answer to the one from the solution book. If the answers didn’t match, the teacher would write an explanation, which is exactly what he did!
So yes, the people arguing for 20 are wrong because the book meant for this to be set up as a proportion.
You’re an idiot. Every cut splits the board in two.
1 cut = 2 pieces = 10 min
2 cuts = 3 pieces = 20 min
etc etc
Anything else is bulls**t.
OK, so when I tell someone that my name is Bob but I really intended to say Adam, are they supposed to know that I did not mean Bob?? It is a poorly worded question, and just because it is the answer in the manual does not mean it is the correct answer. Textbook editors get the answers wrong all the time in math books.
No you are a moron, because only an idiot would think the answer is 15 or 10.
obvious joke is obvious
No TeacherSolutionManual is the moron, not Adam.
“As many people have already said, this is a proportional relationship. A lot of you are taking the act of sawing a board too literally.”
Ah, yes the “if all my idiot friend agree, then we must be right” argument.
This is not a matter of interpretation.
The proportional equation is (2 -1 ) / 10 = (3 – 1) / x
2 / 10 (!!!!!!DOES NOT EQUAL!!!!!) 3 / X
You are either a idiot sheep or a troll. Possibly both.
*an
I was a TA(Teachers Assistant) in high school. One of my jobs was to grade students math tests. I found I spent as much time grading the students tests as I spent grading the “Teacher Solution Manual”.
It seemed to believe silly things like 7 < 3.
So, your Teacher Solution Manual does not appear to really be a good solution to this problem.
Not sure I get this fail… Isn’t the teacher just crossing out the wrong answer and saying what is right? I’m assuming everyone is seeing it as a tick? Or am I missing something blatant…
Never mind – I get it now…10mins for 2 pieces is one cut… 3 pieces is 2 cuts, so 10mins…
Very good. That’s called learning.
It’s unfortunate that there are so many people on here who are unable to do the same.
This depends on the geometry of the board.
If the board is a long rectangle and the person is cutting the board such that the amount of wood she’s cutting through is constant then the cutting time is constant and the function is f(x) = 10(x-1) for all positive integers x.
However, if the board is square this problem is more akin to the magic squares in which case the amount of wood to cut through is always half the previous amount.
Such a function would actually take a form like first 2 pieces take 10 minutes, next 2 take 5 minutes each, next 4 take 2.5 minutes each and so forth and would make the teacher right.
Of course I’d argue the question isn’t sufficiently clear and the base assumption that she’s cutting a a piece of wood in the same direction is reasonable making the student right. Not to mention that’s what the image to the right shows.
the pupil is right because of the word ‘into’ the only way the teacher would be correct is if it stated ‘cut 2 pieces off a board.’
How to make the board ( =========) into 3 pieces (=== === ===) in 10 minutes at the same rate of 1 cut in 10 minutes:
O=== === ===O
Now you’re thinking with portals \o/
Oh nice suggestion. With 4 Portals we can split it even into 3 pieces in a time of 0 min:
===O O===O O===
Now I correct my thoughts of my hitherto existing solution to L = [0, infinity). Thank you
What a noob teacher. Although you actually can cut a board into 4 pieces in 20 minutes with 2 cuts. Cut it in half and then cut it longways.
If we take it even more literally, we got to argue about what “just as fast” means. If we assume she cuts through the same amount of wood in the same time then is your statement wrong because she has to cut through a double-thick board than before.
If it’s cutting the same distance then you would be correct.
Ah! Sorry you’re right I only overread it and putted it to another argue situation i’ve made up. Forgive my unneeded try to correct you at your already correct statement.
no cause the length is longer than the width as shown in the diagram sol it would take longer
I could karate chop a board in 4 seconds
Wouldn’t the correct answer be 15 minutes? I’m confused. What’s the fail here?
764 comments. At least half of them explaining the fail.
I don’t get it
The unit being calculated here is the ten minutes is takes to make a cut. Two more cuts means 20 more minutes. Everything else are attempts to conflate board cutting and turd polishing, so to speak.
it, I meant the time *it* takes
These comments are like fractals… and infinite as well…
10 minutes to cut one friggin board? Someone needs a circular saw…
Nothing like a simple mathematical word problem to bring out the nerds and idiots alike
I wonder what alien anthropologists would conclude about humanity if this comment page was the only thing that survived the zombie apocalypse… other than that the zombies were an improvement, I mean.
Either I’m extremely dumb, or there’s no fail here.
Just found the fail – Extremely dumb >_<
Yeah, you’re extremely dumb =D
Yeah, I just figured out why it’s a fail. The question’s wording can be tricky if you don’t read it carefully. It states that it takes 10 minutes to cut a board into 2 pieces, not make 2 cuts because it only requires 1 cut to split a board into two pieces. To split a board into three pieces requires only 2 cuts and, at a rate of 10 minutes per cut, that comes out to 20 minutes. The teacher probably read it as taking 10 minutes to produce 2 pieces, requiring 2 cuts, meaning that one cut takes 5 minutes. You can extrapolate the rest, but it did take me a couple minutes of re-reading to see why the original answer was correct.
1 Cut = 2 pieces = 10 minutes.
2 Cuts = 3 pieces = 20 minutes.
It takes 10 minutes to make cut once, therefore it takes another 10 minutes to cut it again. 10+10=20.
Anyway all arguments as to whether the teacher or the student are wrong are invalid because the Marie, the wood and the saw don’t exist.
Ah. Zen math.
For those who think the question is ambiguous and can be done in both the students and teachers way. Consider the wording of the paragraph a little more clearly. They are asking you to cut the board in three pieces, implying you are cutting the board in three, not one of the resulting pieces in half.
If I ask you to cut a sandwich in three , would you give me a little square, or divide it evenly in three? Whats your instinct? Use that instinct for this question, and then the students answer becomes the only correct answer.
(P.S you should of gotten your wife to cut the sandwich)
the trick is in the question
to cut a board in two pieces you do one cut of 10 minutes
do cut a board in three pieces you do two cuts of 10 minutes
total is 20 minutes, student is right
799 math nerds are arguing in this comment section.
About 30 are probably math nerds. The rest saw the answer, and are just taking credit for it.
as long as the teacher gets her salary she couldn’t care less about how much time is spent on stuff she doesn’t earn money on x’D (P.S. she because it by any chances must be my former teacher x’D and yeah.. I hated her.)
Fact is, the question is FAIL example.
Who takes 10mins to cut a piece of wood?
The teach is right (From a maths view; 10mins / 2pcs = 5mins per piece; 5mins per piece * 3pcs = 15mins). But so is the student (1 cut of a board to make 2 pieces takes 10mins; therefore 2 cuts, to make 3 pieces takes twice as long per cut, equalling 20mins). Stalemate.
GG
The teach is NOT right from a ‘maths’ point of view.
You can not just divide anything you want and call it an equation.
“I’ll take my weight divide by my age and call that equal to your weight divided by your age. Tell me your weight, and I’ll compute your age.” THAT’s how stupid your reasoning is.
The proper equation is (2 -1 ) / 10 = (3 – 1) / x
2 / 10 (!!!!!!DOES NOT EQUAL!!!!!) 3 / X
There are not two correct answers, only one (and lots of morons apparently).
In a different problem with the same numbers this might be true, but the teacher was incorrect to assume 10 minutes=2 pieces instead of 10 minutes=1 cut. This is a word problem and therefore the wording is everything, you cant get around that.
Example: It took Jack 10 seconds (reasonable unlike the above problem) to pick 2 apples, if Jack wanted to pick 3 more apples how long would it take?
That’s the sort of problem the teacher was solving for, same numbers DIFFERENT PROBLEM! The wording is everything
Two pieces does not take 5 minutes per piece. That doesn’t make any sense at all. It says she had A (meaning ONE) board and it took 10 minutes to CUT cut = 1 cut, into TWO pieces. If it took 5 minutes per piece then it would take 5 minutes for the ONE piece which is the whole board to come into existence and then another 5 to make a cut. That makes no sense.
Think about this logically or go try it out. Pick up a whole board, your board is currently ONE piece you’re at zero time until you start cutting. Now cut the board. It took you 10 minutes to cut. You now have two pieces, did it take you 5 minutes per piece? Absolutely not. Guess what, the next time you make a cut, since you’re going at the same speed (since this is what it says) – same means constant – that’s another 10 minutes. 10 minutes per cut.
f(x) = 10x for {x| x >= 0} This will solve for time where 10 is a constant time and x is the number of cuts. Want to solve for pieces? Here:
f(x) = x + 1 where is number of cuts for {x| x >= 0}
We can make this one function:
f(x) = x + 1 / 10x Where x is number of cuts for {x|x > 0} f(x) = 1 {x|x = 0}
if we make 2 cuts we’ll get 3 pieces:
f(2) = 2 + 1 / 10(2) = 3 / 20 = 3 pieces / 20 minutes
One cut, the original: f(1) = 1 + 1 / 10(1) = 2 / 10 = 2 pieces / 10 minutes
No cuts, f(0) = 1 piece
10 cuts? f(10) = 10 + 1 / 10(10) = 11 / 100 = 11 pieces / 100 minutes
Just like a machine, Marie makes 1 cut per 10 minutes.
actually your all wrong the answer is 10. the wording of the question say that she worked just as fast to complete task B (cut a board into three pieces) as to complete task A (cut a board into two pieces).
so the equation is:
A=B and A=10 then B=10
I would have gotten this question wrong.
But if you realize you were wrong, then that at least is a WIN!
Not realizing you are wrong is a double FAIL.
AGGH AGGH 824 824 AGGH COMMENTS COMMENTS
We should be able to hit 1,000 easy.
The teacher didn’t fail at grading the test. Idk where the fail is. o.O
Ha. For a second there I thought you were serious.
Good one.
The board is cut into two pieces. To cut a board into two pieces, you only make one cut, not two cuts. That makes three pieces.
That one cut took ten minutes.
When you cut one board twice, you get three pieces. So 2 times 10 is 20 minutes.
1 cut = 2 pieces =10 minutes
2 cuts = 3 pieces= 2*10minutes =20 minutes
student ftw
wrong
Ooooh, I wonder if we can hit 900 comments by repeating the 2 cuts vs. 3 pieces logic again….!
I don’t get it. Can someone tell me?
wow what a troll party
but seriously..i dont get the fail either
lol
Hey let’s get this to 1000 comments!
Teacher math Logic fail!
What I wanna say is similar to my name. I could save time by copy and paste my name in here but i decided not to. It might take more time but the keyboard clicking sound turns me on. Whose with me?
if the board is in length infinite and the pieces are finite, you need 15min to have 3 finite pieces.
here’s something to flame(as in verb) on. I shall ignore the grammatical correctness of your stated argument and shall write my thoughts on it equally mistakeful, as grammatical correctness is infact invalid and therefore my response to it is equally insignificant.
Anyway. Assuming that each cut takes 5 minutes(neglecting the variables such as material, thickness, width etc. of the wood and amount of saws used or their irreplaceability), your comment is coherent but lacking the mention of remainder two infinite pieces of boards. If you cut an infinite board three times, regardless of the position where you start your cutting and the length of the two boards that will be cut (aside from the leftovers from each end), as they cannot be infinite, since one cannot saw a board twice in the middle to make three infinite pieces, you will end up with two finite pieces and two infinite pieces(because one cannot comprehend where the board starts and where will it end). There seems to be some logic in your statement, but it is blurred by the grammatical mistakes provided by your keyboard and makes me doubt in reality and places the word “infinite” into fiction section in my library of knowledge.
Having said my opinionon these matters I shall wait steadily for the flaming which I have called upon myself by speaking out my half-baked opinion in the depths of the internet.
Sidenote: Sorry for my bad English since it is not my native language. I come from a small country from Eastern Europe and my math is below average.
EXACTLY!!!!
If 2 x Infinite = Infinite Then 1/2 x Infinite is still Infinite!
Therefore a board of infinite width and Length takes 10 minutes to cut thru the board. You end up with two infinite pieces. Then again a 10 minute cut of one of those infinite pieces results in two more infinite pieces… thus creating 3 inifinite pieces in 20 minutes of cutting!
You have solved the delima of people creating unfound minor cuts in less time due to choosing a tip or smaller cut.
But not having a width/length/height of a board and consider the board has Infinite x Infinite x Infinite measures you eliminate the 1/2 cuts to take half the time…
LOLz
considering infinity is a concept that in this known world does not exist, your logic and math equation are flawed
so many comments (tear runs down face)
Actually, there is insufficient information for a difinitive answer. For example: Was the first board solid or already partially cut? Same with the second board, were there partial cuts? One or two?
What kind of board? If the first was pine and the second oak, the second board is going to take much longer–Marie may be working just as fast, but having less of an effect on the board. What if she hits a knot in the wood? What if it’s a Board of Directors? Then we’re into Business Process Re-engineering and it’s no longer a math question at all.
Did she use the same saw? If so, it will be marginally less sharp for a second cut, and again, even if she works as fast, she’ll have less effect and it will take longer. Also, if she uses a different saw, did it have the same number of teeth? Is she using the same length of strokes? Are the boards of equal thickness?
Okay, I’m just trying to help you all get to the 1000 mark for replies. The teacher was wrong, the student was right, and now the student’s self esteem is in the crapper and he or she will end up in a tower some day with a sniper rifle. Fortunately, calculating trajectories is a math problem and the student will be unsure of his/her aim…
Mr(s). (insert name of person who thinks the teacher is correct), what you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
this student learned a valuable lesson. The class was most likely learning ratio problems before that test, not series problems. Although he most likely doesn’t know what a series problem is, common sense took over and he learned how to solve a very simple series problem on his own. Unfortunately, in school you are not awarded for being smart, you are awarded for regurgitating the information that a teacher has given you. In school you have to try and figure out what your teacher/professor wants to hear and pretend that you agree. If you argue with them you will always be proved wrong, even with false logic. Most teachers view the world a certain way and are trying to (help) you understand their (the best) way, sometimes it’s best to act dumb and and then show them that they helped you come to some dawning realization that they are the smartest people on earth and then be thankful to them for spending their extremely valuable time helping your dumbass understand why they are so right.
This thread is great!
Loving the complex equations ppl are coming up with to prove they are correct in their answer to this very simple question.
The answer can be so many things, it’s too subjective. If anything TEST FAIL.
Let’s just say the board is a normal 4′x8′ sheet. If the first cut make 2 4′x4′ boards and the second one cuts one of the boards in half, than 20 min. But, if you start with a 4′x4′ board, cut it in half down the middle and do the same to a resulting board, 15 min.
You can also cut the first 4′x8′ to make 2 2′x8′ boards, and cut one in half which would take 12 1/2 min.
HOWEVER, the problem does not specify equal boards or the angle used. So, really you can dream ANY size board with ANY cut and can easily come up with theoretical scenarios that can range from 10 min to infinite time!
Any discussion of 20 min vs. 15 min is completely missing the point.
Take a look at the visual to the right of the question. it is obviously not a piece of plywood. It is assumed that she is cutting a long board crosswise and that every cut that she makes takes the same amount of time. Have you ever solved a math problem? It clearly states that she cuts one board INTO two pieces. Then it asks how long it would take to cut a similar board into Three pieces? Lead, Follow or Get out of the way!
Mr. Ivan, what you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The teacher prefers to show working out, nothing wrong there except the dumbness of teacher.
Atreeeeeeyuuuuuuu?!?!?!
Well, that’s the first piece cut. Wow, that took me 10 minutes! I think I’ll have a cup of tea and a biscuit before I cut the next piece. Maybe two biscuits because it was hard work. Is that the news on the radio? Turn the volume up please. I do like chocolate HobNobs. Ok, time to get on. Think I’ll take it easy this time and have a little rest halfway. Where did I put the saw?
Total time for the job: 2 hours 35 minutes 12 seconds.
You work for the government, yes?
I believe the teacher assumes you get faster the more pieces you cut, ya know, because you learn the technique better.
This is what we get for allowing the unions to take over our education system.
Amen
1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3… Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number
20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and
inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the
preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class
participation after answering the question: How did the birds and
squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong
answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s OK. )
6. Teaching Math In 2010
Un hachero vende una carretada de madera para $100. El costo de las
producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
That’s awesome.
Thanks, so many points to be made in that one.
ROFLMAO
LOLZ
HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Bloody brilliant, amigo!
Grammar fail
‘Para’ is incorrect, it is ‘por’ (condición)
‘El costo de las producciones’ is a error due to vulgarity(not of insult, but of ignorance), correct form: El costo de mano de obra
‘What is his profit?’ its translation is of ‘¿Cual es su plusvalia?’
This reminds me of a geography teacher who insisted a particular city was located (longitude and latitude) nearly a whole degree away from its actual location because it wasn’t past the next degree line. No argument could persuade him he was wrong, not even that $19.99 is closer to $20 than $19.
He had no business teaching that class. He was the coach of the basketball team. And even in that role, he demanded complete silence from the band during a game.
I have an idea. I’ll explain it myself, even though it’s been explained 800 times already.
On second thought, I won’t.
I don’t get it, was never that great with math.
the teacher is right how is this a fail
wait nevermind i think i get it now
I don’t get it, If it takes 10 min to cut 2 pieces you increase both sides by 50% and you get 15 min
See, to get two pieces, it takes 10 minutes. That means cutting the board once. To get three pieces, you cut the board twice. So to cut it twice, it would take 10 minutes, assuming nothing happened like getting tired out, giving up because it’s taking too long to cut through a board, or the phone ringing.
…
…forget that last part. Dunno why I said that. But you get it now, right?
typo. I meant cutting it twice would take 20 minutes. Epic fail.
That’s what i forgot to do, increase both sides by .5 Thanks, now I get it.
No problem. The world is full of teachers that don’t know their material; I had a 4th grade teacher who insisted that “silly” and “ugly” were adverbs because they ended in “ly.”
hmmm the answer is 30 right?
FAIL. The drawing shows a beam not a board.
to cut one board into 2 pieces needs 1 cut only! You cut the board in half, that’s it. So, to cut it into 3 pieces, you need to make ONE MORE CUT ONLY!! So, if she uses the same board from before, it needs only one cut, which would equal 20 minutes. If it is a new board, she needs to make 2 new cuts. However, it would still equal 20 minutes.
Is that right?
I had a teacher who told us that the word “green” had two syllables.
I had a teacher in high school…an English teacher, no less…who used to let us know she was upset by telling us that she was “literally beside herself”.
One of her was enough for me.
10 minutes for such a thin board? WTF
The teacher’s wrong because she/he assumes it takes 5 minutes for each piece. However the student is correct in the assumption that it takes Marie ten minutes to cut once thus creating two pieces of wood. To cut one in half again would take another 10 minutes to make the 2nd bit of wood into 2 as well.
10 minutes = 1 cut = 2 pieces.
20 minutes = 2 cuts = 3 pieces.
teacher could be right. Suppose it’s shaped like a square. First you cut it in half. That costs you 10 minutes. The second cut only costs you half the time, so 5 minutes, total: 20 minutes. The question is incomplete. It’s another board, same speed, doesn’t say anything of the size of the pieces. Marie could just use the saw to remove 2 corners. 20 sec later, finished.
I happen to know Marie, and she has no arms. I think she showed great perseverance in completing the task in 10 minutes. You shouldn’t criticize the performance of others if you don’t know the facts. I was also pleased that she could keep up that same rate of work for the second cut, which shows her endurance training is really paying off.
The only fail (in the original post) was that the teacher perceived this as a simple ratio problem involving pieces and minutes, and didn’t pay enough attention to the wording of the problem. Simple fail that I am sure caught several students as well.
I would hope that if the student had shown their work, the teacher would have caught their own error, and realized that 20 was correct. Without seeing the shown work, the teacher went with the incorrect ratio answer, and showed the work to derive it. Only if the teacher would not accept the student’s explanation would this be an Epic Fail.
One of the main objectives of having a word problem is being able to translate it correctly into the corresponding mathematical representation. This problem has enough information in it for people to come to the correct answer. The only “catch” is recognizing that one cut yields two pieces – something most students should get. This process of translation is something that our students need more time in practicing, and probably more specific instruction in how to go about doing it.
And working “just as fast” should obviously be read as minutes per cut, not minutes per completed task, or other convoluted interpretations. If you wanted a lawyer to write these – after numerous revisions – you would end up with a 30 page document stating the problem. And if you had a good enough lawyer you could probably still justify whatever answer you wanted.
As for those people posting that they still don’t get it – the big fail is to not even skim over the 900+ previous comments before going through the trouble of posting your ignorance. Read first, then comment if you still need help. : )
too long didnt read
STOP BEING GRAMMAR NAZIS!
No.
Teacher Fail Fail. If it takes 10 minutes to make 2!! pieces, then it is assumed that 5 minutes is per piece. The teacher is right. It would take 20 minutes to take for, which means 15 minutes for 3. Idiots! I didn’t WANT to comment on this but I felt I had to.
Really with 1000 people all explaining this you still cant see the problem! we all get what they were trying to do with this question but because of the wording they are wrong. for your answer to be right the question should have read it took 10 minutes to cut two pieces off a board. not cut a board into two.
@Dina,
Congrats on failing, this isn’t KITCHEN LOGIC! It takes two cuts to make 3 boards. It took 10 minutes per cut. If you stop halfway through a cut you still have a whole piece of board.
2 cuts = 20 minutes.
Hey guys, the answer to the question hasn’t been explained enough in these 1000 or so comments, so I need to explain it again.
It is 15… where is the fail?
EDIT: NO ITS 20 !! i failed
NO THIS IS NOT A FAIL! ITS CORRECT AND PIECES IS SPELLED RIGHT!
and even if this was a fail… if it takes this much thought and confusion to see that it is a fail… it kinda sucks as a fail. sorry.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
yeah, theres pretty much no fail.10/2 = 5, so 3 pieces would be 3 x 5 = 15. this entire post / response session has all been one large continuous fail btw
Actually,you just failed.
To cut it into 2 pieces (i.e. 1 cut) it takes 10 minutes, so 3 pieces (i.e. 2 cuts) it takes 20 minutes…
FAIL xP
I love that you replied to that. Cheers for the lol
so leaving it in one piece would take 5 minutes? (as stated by someone in this comment page)
holy schnitzel you are in fact correct. the person did exactly what i did. nice math good sir or madam. and no, leaving it in one piece just takes zero effort. 1 cut = 10 minutes, 2 cuts = 2 x 10 = 20 minutes. 0 cuts = 0 x 10 = 0 minutes. wow. basic math and i failed. thats what comes from being in higher math too long. you forget simple stuff like two pieces = 1 cut. thank you for the explanation Shannehh
At my age it took 30 minutes 10 per cut and a 10 minute rest in-between!
I don’t get this!!! the answer is 15 min i dont get it!
The correct answer is 20 as the student stated. To cut the board into 2 pcs, you make 1 cut which took 10 mins. To make 3 pcs, you make one more cut, which will also take 10 mins – total 20 mins.
Looks more like a student fail answer is 15 and he wrote 20
reminds me of my own school time
To cut a single board into 3 pieces, it would require two cuts. If one cut takes 10 minutes, two cuts would take 20. Thus, it takes 20 minutes to cut a board into three pieces.
the teacher seems to be good at math… not logic…
This must be, by far, the MOST commented on pic I’ve seen on Failblog.
This fail is stupid….how is this funny?
I don’t understand how this is fail. To me the teacher is right. Think about it. If you cut a 4 foot wide board into two pieces in 10 minutes then cut one of those pieces in half again wouldn’t it take half the time? 10 minutes = 2 peices. Then you have to cut one of those in half again so 5 more minutes. = 15 total minutes. Or am I miss understating the whole thing?
Dude, you take a saw and a piece of wood, you start to saw. Getting trough the wood with your saw takes you 10 min. Why would it takes half the time the next time you do it? To do a third peice you have to saw the wood two times, which takes you 10 min each time. This is not a problem you can resolve with maths, its a logic problem. If walking around my block takes me 10 min and I decide to do it a second time it wont take me half the time, but the double. its the number of pieces in the other problem that’s messing you up. Hope you get it now
It took Marie 10 minutes to cut 1 board into 2 pieces. If she works “just as fast”, therefore, no change in her cutting pace, it will take her another 10 minutes to cut the board 1 more time. 2 cuts to 1 board will make 3 pieces.
It is impossible to work at the same rate and get a different time on the same board, unless the different (2nd board Marie cut) board was thicker than the first, or she used a different cutting method. Neither of these two options were mentioned, so it must be assumed that they weren’t changed. The teachers logic is wrong.
She didn’t spell anything wrong, that is how you spell “pieces”. You know that saying ” I before E except after C “??
The best comments are the ones that are not seeing the fail, immediately followed by: now I see, I fail. And the ones that don’t see the fail and never will.
And it’s a trick question and the teacher fell for it.
So… We are all arguing about whether or not Avis has a bird as their avatar rather than enjoying the math fail? Just for the record, there is no grammar mistake on this post. The teacher spelled everything correctly. The error is with the math.
If you cut a board in two pieces, you’re cutting it in half. You are making one cut to the board, making it two pieces.
If you were then to cut a board into three pieces (making two cuts in the board), it would take twice as long as making one cut, yes?
So the student is right. If one cut takes 10 minutes, then two cuts would take 20 minutes. Three cuts would take 30 minutes, four cuts would take 40 minutes, and so on.
The teacher made the (easily understandable) mistake of counting each piece of wood as a separate cut. Cutting a board into two pieces, however, does not require two cuts.
.. the teacher is right… 10 minutes for two. then it would be fifteen minutes for her to cut another board into three pieces.
Aaaaaaarrrrghhh
Nope. I also thought that teacher is right, but he/she is not.
If you have a board to make two pieces you need to make one cut.
One cut = 10 minutes
To cut a board into three pieces you need to make two cuts so
Two cuts = 20 minutes
So… teacher is wrong.
molly. you suck.
Well Both are wrong the teacher and the student
That’s… interesting Oo’ Can you explain why?
Because the question says “If she works just as fast”, which would mean that she would take 10 minutes. Poor choice of words, and poor teacher.
1000!
Am I the only one who doesn’t find a fail in this? The math is correct and so is the spelling of “pieces”. The only fail I see is in the question itself where it uses the word “if” one two many times
The problem would have been clearer if the question stats that if she cuts two pieces of board in half in 10 minutes, how long would it take to cut three? Then the answer would have been 15. The problem clearly states she cuts a single board into two pieces and that she takes the same time to cut a board into two.
Brad, normally I don’t correct grammar but this one is too appealing:
“one two many times”
shouldn’t that be:
“one too many times”
or is the math getting a little whacky? (btw: just yanking your chain!!)
piece!! (like someone already posted)
The real fail here is how many people don’t get the fail. 20 is the correct answer. The teacher failed by marking it wrong. It takes Marie ONE cut to saw a board into two pieces and TWO cuts to saw a board into three pieces so it would take her TWICE as long – 20 minutes. There is no spelling fail. 90% of you FAIL at math.
I DO fail. No wonder I stink at algebra and other math classes…smart people, making people look stupider every day.
The answer depends on the board being cut. If it is a long, skinny board then the answer is 20 minutes, but if the board is a flat square then the answer is 15 because the first cut is twice a long as the second one. Therefore they are both right answers. Although, the picture on the test suggests the long, skinny answer.
Remove the “board” and “saw” from the equation. The problem clearly states that in 10 minutes she has “half” of “something.”
So with that said, this can easily be replicated using a piece of paper. Tear a piece of paper into two. Now you have two pieces of paper. Take one of the two pieces of paper, not you have 3 pieces of paper.
With that said, if each tear of paper cost you 10 minutes, then tearing the paper once (giving you two pieces) gives you 10 minutes. Tearing one of the other papers cost you another 10 minutes. You now have three pieces of paper, and 20 minutes of your time.
My guess is that the teacher incorrectly wrote the problem. The fact that there are “Three stars” by the question, leads me to believe that the problem is somewhat difficult for whatever grade it’s in which leads me to believe the incorrect wording of the problem.
The real question is why does it take you so long to tear a damn piece of paper? Is the paper really strong or are you really weak?
Well, obviously the teacher is expecting Marie to get better with experience. And probably assuming she can’t physically get any faster than five minutes per cut (Marie being such a slender and petite girl, you know) and thus, every cut after the first should only take five minutes! How could you not have gotten all of that from the problem at hand? It’s so very obvious after all
This teacher is retarded.
If you cut 1 board into 2 pieces in 10 minutes, it means that you spend 10 minutes doing 1 cut, so if you have to do 2 cuts, it has to take you 20 minutes.
Holy crap. 1,032 comments. Niiiice.
How can you tell? Did you count?! Oh my..
And not sure if anyone already pointed this out… BBUuuuuttt… The teacher is right. Because 2 cuts takes 10 mins. 3 cuts is 1.5x more. So 10 x 1.5 = 15
you’ve got to be kidding me. Seriously?
No. Just no. Think: to cut a board into two pieces, you make ONE cut. Cut one piece in half, you get two halves….not rocket science…..
So to get THREE pieces, you make TWO cuts…..
Oy.
If I have a 16ft 2×4 board, and cut 6 inches off one end; is the remaining 15.5ft of board a “piece” or still the “board”?
Right, if the initial board was 15 feet long, but the pieces you were cutting from it were 2 feet long. You would have to cut from the end of the long section of board twice. And cutting three pieces would them follow the teacher’s math.
Unfortunately, the question does not define what a “piece” is, cutting the board in half would also result in two pieces, meaning the single cut took 10 minutes, in which case the student’s math is correct.
The fail is not the teacher’s math, nor is it the student’s. The fail is the question not properly defining all the variables. However, looking at the wording of the question “10 minutes to saw the board [b]INTO[/b] two pieces”, I would tend to think that means 1 cut to saw it in half leaving two pieces. Now if the question read “10 minutes to saw two 3 foot pieces from the 15 foot board” there would be no question.
As the question stands, if I were a teacher, I would award half a mark for either answer, the full mark only if the student also showed his/her work. And potentially a bonus mark for coming up with both answers + showing the work for both. (All my math teachers were sticklers for showing your work, didn’t matter how obvious the question was)
In either case, 1 cut being 5 or 10 minutes, Marie needs a better saw. I’d also award some points for that answer.
1. You are overthinking this.
2. All the other variables exist solely in your imagination, not in the problem. Applying the obvious – the simple terms of the written problem, the illustration, + Occam’s Razor — the teacher is just wrong, and the pupil right.
3. Convoluted reasoning based on imagination of possible variables does not make the teacher right.
hahahahahahahahaha i can’t believe you
)))) one cut is 10 minutes, 2 cuts is 20 minutes. dumbass! i’ll laugh for a week thinking of you, thanks!
No dude, its 20 minutes. 1 cut on one board to make 2 pieces took 10 minutes. 2 cuts on one board to make it 3 pieces takes twice as long.
1/10 = 2/x x= 20
Yeah I totally agree with PattSW because your saw gains carpentry experience every time you make a cut.
For example:
First cut saw = level 1 = 10 minutes
Saw has leveled up – 1 -> 3
Second cut saw = level 3 = 5 minutes
Saw has leveled up 3 -> 4
Third cut saw = level 4 = 3 minutes
and etc.
She cuts the same speed but the saw is sharper due to the level increments.
The teacher was clearly thinking in terms of MMORPG; you guys need to take that into consideration.
Stupid, and late comment (well, I commented late too, so scratch that).
1 cut = x
1 cut = 10 minutes
2 cuts (3 thirds) = 2x
x = 10 minutes
2x = 20 minutes.
Wait, teachers play MMORPG?
How did this fail lead to MMORPG comments?…
and the kid was right, it was twenty
…And this all somehow relates to the teacher’s fail?