Year 7 High School Maths

[dirtychinchilla]

It says it isn't drawn to scale, so you can't assume it's a square. There isn't enough information.

Nor can you assume that the bottom side is equal in length to the top.

 

[Nitefly]

Impossible unless the question says that the ‘missing indent’ is a square, or there is a grid indicating the same.

 

[joey1211]

Nor can you assume that the bottom side is equal in length to the top.

Ooh, well spotted.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Nor can you assume that the bottom side is equal in length to the top.

Did you order the Code Red?

 

[Skillmister]

(16*4) + (16*5) + (11*11) = 265 ?

Sloppy from someone who is so meticulous about their desk arrangement

 

[LiE]

Sloppy from someone who is so meticulous about their desk arrangement

I know right.

 

[SilverTongue]

Just as a curve ball, would the correct answer not be "there isn't enough information to calculate the area" when I was in secondary our teachers used to throw curve balls like that in to catch us out

 

[NVP]

The only way to work it out is if you assume the indent is an equal sided square (i.e., 11 x 11).
Other than that the horizontal measurements in the indent are missing

 

[Showboat]

Is this a question with 5 possible answers provided?
It could be one where 4 are completely wrong and only one could possibly be right. But you need to assume or 'guess' a measurement.
a.) 122
b.) 144
c.) 232
d.) 320
e.) 400

 

[ANDARIAL]

42

 

[SPG]

Missing DIM this is why teachers are overpaid.

 

[danlightbulb]

Shaking head in disbelief at some of the answers here.

Just as a curve ball, would the correct answer not be "there isn't enough information to calculate the area" when I was in secondary our teachers used to throw curve balls like that in to catch us out

I would go with this. Although probably deemed unfair to the kids these days.

 

[Alz_D]

Return to the teacher with a note "My dad said this is impossible to work out unless we assume the indent is square, but assumption didn't get us to the moon"

I think this may be a winner. Thanks for everyone confirming that I haven't lost the plot

 

[Roar87]

Nor can you assume that the bottom side is equal in length to the top.

I think that would be a reasonable assumption despite the fact that the corners aren't labelled as right angles

 

[joey1211]

I think that would be a reasonable assumption despite the fact that the corners aren't labelled as right angles

How would labelling the corners as right angles tell us the lengths of the sides?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

It wouldn't. But as it's not to scale, those lines could be wonky af in reality.

 

[dl8860]

How would labelling the corners as right angles tell us the lengths of the sides?

Two parallel lines will always maintain a constant distance between them. So if the corners were labelled as right angles, we'd know the bottom is 16 wide, same as the top.

 

[touch]

Two parallel lines will always maintain a constant distance between them. So if the corners were labelled as right angles, we'd know the bottom is 16 wide, same as the top.

That's not correct.

Look at this diagram. The bottom and top lines are parallel and all angles are right angles. The bottom line is not 16 units though.

 

[Skillmister]

I think that would be a reasonable assumption despite the fact that the corners aren't labelled as right angles

More like you definitely cannot assume that because they've gone to the trouble of drawing the '5' side smaller than the '4' side.

 

[ColdAsIce]

That's not correct.

Look at this diagram. The bottom and top lines are parallel and all angles are right angles. The bottom line is not 16 units though.

Why have you made your own version of the OP?