
Post by hydrophilic on May 28, 2015 7:43:35 GMT
Here is a recent test question I was asked to answer...
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!)
[Edit] 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? [/Edit]



Post by tokra on May 28, 2015 8:08:23 GMT
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



Post by on Jun 17, 2015 15:21:42 GMT
Last week the Zowie Company received an order for 50 twowheeled scooters and 70 threewheeled scooters. The company had in stock only 70 wheels for the twowheeled scooters and 100 wheels for the threewheeled scooters. To complete the order, how many more wheels does the company need in all?



Post by gsteemso on Jun 17, 2015 18:35:30 GMT
30 & 110
Edit: Oh, “in all.” 140.



Post by hydrophilic on Jun 18, 2015 8:43:35 GMT
Sadly there is no answer to my question, but in regards to Dee, I think the answer(s) is(are): 30 (for 2wheel = agree with gsteemso) and... 110 (for 3wheel = 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 testwriters imagine... aka, bullspit)
Err, I guess there is room for debate, so flame me!! (I can take the heat) [/Edit]



Post by gsteemso on Jun 19, 2015 21:24:26 GMT
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.



Post by hydrophilic on Jun 20, 2015 10:09:34 GMT
Well the 30 & 110... I've tried to review previous posts, I am not certain what it means!
All I do know is people who have posted have given some thought / explanation.... so thank you all! (10 minds are better than 1!)
Thanks gsteemso... I (think that I) see what you are saying... "First, you have to work out how many shares there are..."
Well to me, that is the start of the spiral into a huge pile of bû!l$h!+
There are many ways one COULD divide the shares... the stated problem gives no clear way to ACTUALLY divide them...
So we (as problem solvers) are free to devise any method we seem appropriate...
But of course the testwriters have their own perconceived opinions of what is "right"
I'm not saying your logic is wrong, gsteemso (quite contrary.... thank you for your feedback). I'm just saying it is an arbitrary logic...
So perhaps this is really (secretly) a test of how I (the test taker) can derive/imagine the "correct" rules? What ya think?
P.S. I got the "correct" solution by applying gsteemso's rules of logic, but I do not see why they are necessarily the "right rules" (except for the fact that the testwriters are a bunch of Nazis)



Post by hydrophilic on Jun 20, 2015 10:22:19 GMT
Sorry for double post, but after further review, I think the problem (err, my problem?) is the stated question contains...
LOGIC BOMB:
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).
Please help... thank you all!!



Post by gsteemso on Jun 20, 2015 17:06:01 GMT
Hydrophilic, I’m having trouble following your reasoning. I can see how a skimread 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?



Post by hydrophilic on Jun 21, 2015 8:05:04 GMT
Thank you so much, gsteemso for trying to help!! So I think this really a language problem more than a math problem!! So my reasoning is simple (well, for me...) When the testwriters say I automatically think "children share = total / 4"... which means there is $0 left for the grandchildren... Sorry, I see now that it was actually Tokra who gave a simple example (previously I was thinking it was gsteemso... silly me!) Anyway, Tokra has split the total like this:  "Full share (children)" = $750,000 = $4,500,000 / 6
 "Quarter share (grandchildren)" = $187,500 = $750,000 / 4
Tokra's method gives a total of: (8 * $187,500) + (4 * $750,000) = $1,500,000 + $3,000,000 = $4,500,000 ... this agrees with the Nazi test writers...
So my thinking/logic is that $750,000 is not a "full share" (not x/4) but only a partial/distributed share (of x/6)...
Anyway, I think the main problem (for me) is the meaning/definition of a "full share" in this context... in other words, an English problem (not a math problem)
Edit
It would be nice to have a time machine in order to post the same question to people 1000 years in the past and 1000 years in the future, and see how they interpret the language! /Edit

