Here is a recent test question I was asked to answer...
Grandpa Ross won $4.5 million in a lottery. He wanted to give the money to his 4 children and 8 grandchildren. He decided that each of his children should receive a full share of the money, and each grandchild would receive a one over four share. After deducting $1.26 million in lawyers' fees and taxes, how much did Grandpa Ross give to each grandchild?
So I am I retarded or what!!! Please post your comments!!! (pretty please )
The way I see it, if Grandpa Ross really wanted to give 25% to each of his actual children ("full share of the money") then all 100% (4 direct children * 25% each) would go to his direct descendants... his grandchildren would receive 0% (divided by 8).
Hopefully you agree 0% divided by 8 is 0.
Yet zero (0) is not an answer.
Is this a totally fù¢kéd up question -- or I am I retarded? (Please advise... thank you!)
Is this some sneaky trick against programmers?
Maybe the "full share of the money" does not mean 25% ?? (Me, a programmer, thinks 100% divided by 4 direct decendents = 25%)
Is this company fuÇk!ñg with us?
Last Edit: May 28, 2015 7:50:34 GMT by hydrophilic: Elaboration...
The way I see this question is that you first have to calculate how many shares there are to give around. 4 "full" shares and 8 1/4 shares = 6 total shares. One "full" share = ($4,500,000 - $1,260,000) / 6 = $3,240,000 / 6 = $540,000 One quarter share = $540,000 / 4 = $135,000
So each grandchild will receive $135,000 and each child $540,000 8 x $135,000 + 4 x $540,000 = $3,240,000
Last week the Zowie Company received an order for 50 two-wheeled scooters and 70 three-wheeled scooters. The company had in stock only 70 wheels for the two-wheeled scooters and 100 wheels for the three-wheeled scooters. To complete the order, how many more wheels does the company need in all?
Sadly there is no answer to my question, but in regards to Dee, I think the answer(s) is(are): 30 (for 2-wheel = agree with gsteemso) and... 110 (for 3-wheel = disagree with gsteemso)
I hope that you, Dee, will certify/verify the correct answers... thnaks!
[Edit] Thank you, Tokra, for answering my original question...
I do see your logic ... but to me, it seems like imaginary / wishfull logic... you made assumputions to derive your conclusions... I am not saying your assumptions are wrong (in fact, they seem very practical to me)... but they are still assumptions that go beyond the scope of the orginal question.
So maybe the test was not one of pure logic, but one of making $h!t up to arrive at a "reasonable" solution???
Of course that begs the question... what is reasonable? (My opinion: whatever the test-writers imagine... aka, bullspit)
Err, I guess there is room for debate, so flame me!! (I can take the heat) [/Edit]
I said “30 & 110, totalling 140.” You said “30 & 110” too, but claimed to disagree with me. I’m not even going to ask.
Regarding the original question, I fully agree with the solution presented a couple of posts ago. (I don’t know who wrote the post because the cellphone interface to this forum does not reveal older posts during composition.) First you have to work out how many shares there are, which the post that lays out the solution does correctly based on the information supplied in the original word problem. Just because you need to perform two stages of calculation before you reach the answer does not mean extraneous information is somehow introduced. Everything you need to solve it is there from the start.
Sorry for double post, but after further review, I think the problem (err, my problem?) is the stated question contains...
He decided that each of his children should receive a full share of the money, and each grandchild would receive a one over four share.
So with 4 children, and each receives a full share, they should get X$/4, with a remainder (for the grandchildren) of $0/8... my logic...
But the gteemso/Nazis logic says something different (sorry ... too drunk now to post equations, but gsteemso's logic does give answer compatible with the Nazi test writers)
Anyway, I think this is more of a test of English interpretation/imagination than math/science.... (shock: it pisses me off because I am an engineer and not an author!)
Obviously this all my own biased opinion... please contradict and PROVE why I am wrong... I can imagine many arguments why I might be wrong, but right now can't think of any that would be definitive.... (in other words, the original question was bogus).
Hydrophilic, I’m having trouble following your reasoning. I can see how a skim-read of the original question might lead you to erroneously think there were only four shares, but Tokra’s explanation of why there are six is so simple, clear and straightforward that I do not understand why you are saying there are other ways to solve the problem. Could you give us some examples of how else you might reach an answer?
The world’s only gsteemso
Agitator-in-chief for the Seattle Retro-Computing Society