Well this has been an entertaining read. I forget how passionately people can argue about something so banal.
I'll just repeat what has been said before because there really isn't a lot to say. The problem is poorly presented. When I first looked at it I saw 2 because I always make it a point to separate individual fractions by parenthesis as so:
(48/2)*(9+3)
It's clear and unambiguous. There is no argument about how it can be perceived. Without the first set of parenthesis or the multiplication sign, I see it as being in the denominator. Is that wrong? Apparently, and since I'm wrong I'm a bad person and a terrible student who should just flip burgers for the rest of my life. That's how it works, right?
If this were a math problem of any actual bearing to any situation then it would be framed slightly better. Yes, all of you who say its 288 are correct. Technically. But why this sense of superiority that I'm sensing from some of you? What good is it doing honestly?
/preachyrant
I'll just repeat what has been said before because there really isn't a lot to say. The problem is poorly presented. When I first looked at it I saw 2 because I always make it a point to separate individual fractions by parenthesis as so:
(48/2)*(9+3)
It's clear and unambiguous. There is no argument about how it can be perceived. Without the first set of parenthesis or the multiplication sign, I see it as being in the denominator. Is that wrong? Apparently, and since I'm wrong I'm a bad person and a terrible student who should just flip burgers for the rest of my life. That's how it works, right?
If this were a math problem of any actual bearing to any situation then it would be framed slightly better. Yes, all of you who say its 288 are correct. Technically. But why this sense of superiority that I'm sensing from some of you? What good is it doing honestly?
/preachyrant