Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 50661 2004-10-28 06:23:00 Maths Revision Gum Digger (5187) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
285494 2004-10-29 06:10:00 Grrrr. Sorry about italics.

I see now in hindsight that my earlier post gave across the message that we understood the question and didn't know the maths. I'd like to clarify that, again, right now by saying that we did not understand the question, because of it's sheer illogical nature.

They never told us what his mum has to do with anything. Not once.

I do not know which paper this is from - it was collated into a book. Now whether it was misprinted or whatever is beside the point - I'm trying to prove how horrible a situation we students face. 		Growly (6)
285495 2004-10-29 07:05:00 Looks a pretty straight forward question to me. He owes 70% of the cars price after paying his deposit. This he pays back using two ways - $45 per month to his parents obviously interest free and the rest to the car dealer involving the stated interest. The marking schedule's answer is plainly the correct one. The two parts the repayment are reasonably clear. Dally (6292)
285496 2004-10-29 08:26:00 Why does he pay his parents? Growly (6)
285497 2004-10-29 08:28:00 Or to put it another way, why does he not pay the 70% straight back to the dealer? Growly (6)
285498 2004-10-29 09:03:00 I agree that the question is badly worded, but with a bit of common sense it it possible to work out what is required. The only information 'missing' is that the money he paid his parents was destined for the car dealer. This information is easy to deduce, because in the context of the question he would not be paying his parents for anything other than the car. Then, if you think about it some more - they state that "He will pay the money back using two methods". The only two methods listed are the parents and the dealer. Therefore ( all answers rounded to 2dp):

pays parents $40/month for 2 yrs

$2995 is the lumpsum including 2 yrs interest.

To work out the interest:
$2995 / 110.5 = $27.10 (break into 1% blocks)
$27.10 X 10.5 = $284.55 (this is the interest for the 2nd year)

$2995 - $284.55 = $2710.45 (the lumpsum with 1 year interest)
$2710.45 / 110.5 = $24.53 (break into 1% blocks)
$24.53 X 10.5 = $257.57 (interest for second year)
$2710.45 - 257.57 = $2452.88 (the lump summ less the interest)

Now we add the lump sum to what he has paid his parents:
$2452.88 + $(45 X 24)
$2452.88 + $1080
TOTAL = $3532.88

Therefore the original cost of the car was $3532.88.

Happy now? Yes the question was badly worded, but with a bit of common sense it is easy to solve.

Bletch 		Bletch (244)
285499 2004-10-29 09:04:00 > Or to put it another way, why does he not pay the 70%
> straight back to the dealer?


That's not the point of the question. The aim was to make you think about it in a different way, not necessarily the most sensible one. 		Bletch (244)
285500 2004-10-29 09:05:00 I agree with SY - fire the teacher. Bletch (244)
285501 2004-10-29 09:10:00 > $2995 is the lumpsum including 2 yrs interest.
>
> To work out the interest:
> $2995 / 110.5 = $27.10 (break into 1% blocks)
> $27.10 X 10.5 = $284.55 (this is the interest
> for the 2nd year)
>
> $2995 - $284.55 = $2710.45 (the lumpsum with 1
> year interest)
> $2710.45 / 110.5 = $24.53 (break into 1%
> blocks)
> $24.53 X 10.5 = $257.57 (interest for second
> year)
> $2710.45 - 257.57 = $2452.88 (the lump summ
> less the interest)
>
> Now we add the lump sum to what he has paid his
> parents:
> $2452.88 + $(45 X 24)
> $2452.88 + $1080
> TOTAL = $3532.88

Sorry about the final answer - I worked out the problem using $2995 (not $2992) as the lumpsum. This means that the final answer will be slightly off, however the logic is correct 		Bletch (244)
285502 2004-10-29 09:15:00 > > John bought a car. He paid a 30% deposit and
> borrowed the remaining 70%. He will pay the money
> back using two methods:
>
> I'm no maths wiz, but I can't see how anybody can do
> other than get one of several correct answers here,
> there are too many unanswered questions, for
> example:
>
> 1) Did he borrow the 30% from his parents to make the
> deposit?
No, the question says "He paid a 30% deposit". Ergo, the 30% was not borrowed. It says that the remaining 70% was borrowed.

>
> 2) If not, did he have the deposit saved, and the
> borrowing from his parents was in fact part of the
> 70%?
Yes.

>
> 3) You only know how much he owed the dealer.
You also know how much the original 30% was. You have all the info required to solve it, it just requires a bit of common sense (no offense)

>
> I suspect that the original question may have
> contained just a little more information.
I don't think it did. It's not needed.


Bletch 		Bletch (244)
285503 2004-10-29 09:32:00 Maybe his parents were the car dealers?
and he had to pay them back - being the car dealer.

otherwise this is totally confusing and i cant see the point in this question but then i am not good at maths.

beetle 		beetle (243)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7