/sci/ - Science & Math

Solution:

>>10372245
We already had this thread and it ended with a much more exact figure than "between 31 and 83"

brainlet checking in
it's 91.2

>>10372250
Believe it or not, I'd already calculated that and posted on an old thread.
>>10372259
You can't calculate the exact figure you fuckwit.

this shet doesn't exist

>>10372587
>Imagine being this retarded
I said "much more exact"

>>10372601
BC and AD aren't parallel

>>10373240
there are not degrees of exactness. Oops, actually it is you who is a retard and everyone will be laughing at you

80 units squared

>>10372245
Kek

>>10373962
scratch that, 91.22499

>>10373971
scratch that, 70

>>10373504
>there are not degrees of exactness
Wew, lad. I hope this is bait

>>10373962
>>10373971
>>10373974
It's between 82 and 83. I don't remember the exact figure for the approximation

>>10373504
Oh the irony

Is this bite?
14*5=70 is answer.

>>10372245
is this thread a troll? isn't it just 5*16

76

>>10374325
(16+12)/2, not 16

>>10373984
>between 82 and 83
Believe it or not, there's a very large variety of figures which fit the mold in OP. Pic related is one example.
IIRC the difference between the infimum and the maximum was around OP's calculation.

>>10374264
>>10374325
Did you even read the thread

>>10374366
Wrong. There has to be a line that's 5 units long and perpendicular to the bottom. There is only one shape that satisfies all the criteria in the OP

>>10373962
That's what I got as well

>>10372250

>>10374366
>>10375031
Here, I drew it for you

>>10375031
>perpendicular to the bottom
I wasn't aware that was a requirement. In particular since nothing in the fucking picture requires that you absolute twat.
If you mean "literally just a 5 long line", then the drawing fits, it just overlaps with another line.
>>10375153
K.

>>10373484
then it's not a trapezoid

>>10372250
Why is common core so inane?

>>10375169
That's the joke. That's why OP's image is funny.

>>10375165
Are you high? That dotted line is very clearly meant to show the height of the vertex it connects to which implies that it is perpendicular to the bottom line. What did you think it meant?

>>10372245
Was this problem on a standardized test? Does anybody here really believe this is the first time a geometry question has contained this kind of mistake? I've got to say, I suspect a lot of the reaction against common core is getting stirred up by private testing companies trying to keep their business alive

>>10372566
It's 70 pal.

>>10375215
Are you high? The base and upper side are clearly parallel in the picture. Why did you think they were drawn like that?

>>10375434
There is nothing implying that those lines are parallel. You're being obtuse because you don't want to admit that you were wrong

>>10375444
I'm being obtuse because you're eenie meenie moeing what to trust in the pic.
The line from the vertex to the base implies the existence of a line from the vertex to the base. This bounds upwards the area of the figure.

>>10375451
The existence of that line and the context of the worksheet make it clear that the purpose of the line is to show the height of that vertex. The designers of this worksheet intended for the figure to be a trapezoid to be solved using the formula but neglected to check the side lengths they selected. You can't argue that they are parallel lines for the same reason because there is no trapezoid with a height of 5 and the side lengths given.

>>10375169
No-one said it was.

>>10375531
>Common Core Trapezoid Anonymous 02/09/19(Sat)21:48:37

>>10372245

Seriously! are guys functionally retarded.
You do not even need a calculator

12 * 5 + 5 * 2 = 70 sq units

>>10376363
The ultimate bait

>>10372245
WAIT WHAT IS OBJECT A?