This question has been bugging me...

catseyeagate · Post by **catseyeagate** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:54 pm

Just wondering if anyone knows how to get to the answer 560 using this question...

3 individuals form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests 9000, y invests 7000, and Z invests 4000. If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive then, if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

Like it says in the title: This question has been bugging the hell out of me, and any help would be absolutly awesome. Thanks...

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:59 pm

4800/20=240

So for each 1000 dollars invested, you get 240 dollars worth of the profits.

So X gets 9*240=2160

Y gets 7*240=1680

Z gets 4*240=960

2160+1680+960=4800

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:59 pm

I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

catseyeagate · Post by **catseyeagate** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:00 pm

I guess I was misinformed...Thanks alot. You're the best, but how did you get 20 again... :oops:

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:01 pm

Anarkistsdream wrote:I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

It says that x would get less. That must mean that you get LESS money if you invested more.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:01 pm

hecter wrote:
Anarkistsdream wrote:I don't see a way to get 560 out of that.

It says that x would get less. That must mean that you get LESS money if you invested more.

That makes no sense though....

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:04 pm

Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

EDIT: The share Anarkists worked out being in proportion to the size of the original investment.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:06 pm

Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:07 pm

catseyeagate wrote:I guess I was misinformed...Thanks alot. You're the best, but how did you get 20 again...

9,000+7000+4000=20,000

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:09 pm

Anarkistsdream wrote:
Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:

If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:09 pm

Anarkistsdream wrote:
Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

They are split evenly:

3 individuals form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally.

The question is, what if X got a clue, and shared them in proportion to his investment? How much less is he currently getting?

£560.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:12 pm

hecter wrote:
Anarkistsdream wrote:
Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:
If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

The question is worded correctly. Go back and read it.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:12 pm

hecter wrote:
Anarkistsdream wrote:
Stopper wrote:Because if profits were shared equally, X would get £1,600 (£4,800/3), which is £560 less than the share Anarkists worked out (£2,160.)

But they aren't shared equally... It says specifically that the profits are divided the way that the money was invested...

Not split evenly three ways.

I think it's the way it was worded. It's probably meant to say:
If the profits are 4800, how much less would X receive if the money was divided out equally than if the profits were divided in proportion to the amount invested?

That's it, Hecter... I didn't see the top part...

You and Stopper actually figured out the REAL problem... I just did the math after reading the last line...

:wink:

Good job Stopper and Hecter!

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:13 pm

Stopper wrote:The question is worded correctly. Go back and read it.

Ya, I just read your post, and you're right. It's just a bit confusing for my mind which is in summer vacation mode. Actually, I just got my report card and my lowest mark was in math.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:13 pm

By the way, that is why I majored in English and Journalism and not math... :oops:

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:16 pm

Anarkistsdream wrote:By the way, that is why I majored in English and Journalism and not math...

I wouldn't worry about it. You did the proportions calculation. Judging from the newspapers I read every day, your average journalist would have difficulty counting his toes.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:17 pm

$560 is correct. Tell X to wisen up!

BTW Ank, I found your approach to it odd, and more confusing, which I would expect from a non-math type. And I don't mean that as an insult, just funny how different-minded people approach the problem differently.

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:22 pm

hmmm...but his approach was exactly how i would have done it...and my best classes are math and science...

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:27 pm

I could be talking out of my arse here, but would Anarkists' method be favoured by someone who attempted to do the sums in their head?

Backward as that may seem.

EDIT: I mean the idea of mental arithmetic is backward, not Anarkists...

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:28 pm

Easier way, figure out % each initially invested, apply that % to profits. The dollars/$1000 invested won't work in all cases (what if they weren't even dollar amounts? or the amounts invested changed over time?) and is more confusing IMO.... and I have to explain numbers to non-math types all day long. Both ways arrived at the same answer in this problem however, so no worries. ;-)

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:29 pm

Stopper wrote:I could be talking out of my arse here, but would Anarkists' method be favoured by someone who attempted to do the sums in their head?

Backward as that may seem.

EDIT: I mean the idea of mental arithmetic is backward, not Anarkists...

*wipes away tears*

You think I'm stupid don't you???

WAHHHHHHH!

:cry:

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:00 pm

I have nothing to contribute to this thread.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:01 pm

MM, stop spamming then.

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:02 pm

wicked wrote:MM, stop spamming then.

So my post was spamming but the post above mine wasn't?

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:07 pm

Posting just to say you have nothing to say is a perfect example of spam. Ank was involved in the conversation about his math abilities.