Father stumped by simple maths problem meant for his 10-year-old son - so can YOU solve it?
A father was left gobsmacked by a 5th grade maths problem given to his son as he turned to the Internet for help solving the deceptively complicated question.
Writing on Reddit, the parent - from the US - noted he 'must be missing something in how it's worded' alongside a picture of the equation that was meant for a 10-year-old.
However, social media users were also left scratching their heads, with some saying there must be 'a typo or misprint' that rendered the problem unsolvable.
According to the photo posted on Reddit, it states: 'Kayla has 18 bottles of bubbles. She wants to give two bottles to each of her six friends. How many bottles will she have left over?
'Which expression solves the problem? A) (18 divide 2) divide 6, B) (18 divide 2) + 6, C) (18 x 2) - 6, or D) (18 x 2) + 6.'
The man's caption read: '[5th Grade Math] Curious how to solve this math question my son has. This particular question was in my son's math homework from the other day.
'They reviewed the answers in class today and apparently the answer was A. Curious how they came to this answer?
'None of the options seemed right as I was expecting it to be 18 - (6 × 2). Where two bottles are handed out to each friend. Six friends total, meaning 12 bottles are given out, so six bottles are left over.
'I must be missing something in how it's worded but I can't for the life of me figure it out.'
While some people rushed to the comments section to try and work out the answer, most felt the question itself was inaccurate.
One person said: 'Your answer seems to be correct, none of those options are correct..'
Another added: 'I think it's more likely a typo or misprint. Like if they swapped the subtraction and multiplication sign and moved the parentheses on answer choice C, then: (18 x 2) - 6 could become 18 - (2 x 6)'
Someone else agreed: 'May be a misprint, but apparently reviewed by the teacher, who confirmed A.... Awful.'
A fourth added: 'You're correct, the teacher is wrong. If you simplify A, you get 1.5 which doesn't make any sense in the context of the problem.'
Another simply said: 'Seems that A is wrong to me too...'
Others tried to understand where the teacher got answer A from and they were just as stumped as the father.
One person said: 'Really twisting my brain here to make sense of A being correct, but here goes: if you divide 18 bottles by 2 you get 9 bottles in two separate piles.
'Now give one bottle from each pile to all 6 friends. The result would be 3 bottles leftover in two separate piles, or 6 leftover bottles total. Gymnastics.'
Another said: 'A, if they are supposed to use euclidean divisions (18/2 = she has 9 batches of 2, 9/6 => 1 and remainder is 3)'
Someone else wrote: 'Using bad logic, this is the only way I can get any of the answer choices (and it is A) - I'm not saying it's correct, only wanted to explain their (wrong) logic:
'She's splitting the 18 bottles into sets of 2, that's 18 / 2. Then, she's splitting those sets of 2 among her 6 friends.
'That's why you divide by 6 next. That leaves you with A. But as everyone here has said, you and your son are correct. The worksheet is wrong.'
Later the father came back with an update after speaking to his son's 5th grade teacher.
He wrote: 'Thanks everyone! It does seem the worksheet is indeed wrong. I'll reach out to the teacher and let them know. Appreciate the feedback!
'EDIT: I did talk with the teacher and they went over it in class together. The teacher mentioned none of the answers were right and what my son came up with was correct.'
It comes after a mother was left baffled by a very 'obscure' question on her six-year-old's maths homework.
The confused parent dubbed herself the 'worst homework helper ever' after she could not solve her child's query as she couldn't work out what the vague question was even asking.
The activity states Jake has nine lines and two dots before asking the student to 'show one exchange he could make'.
Turning to the internet, the confused mum asked Reddit for help and online sleuths uncovered the true answer.
'I'm not sure what this question is even asking. He says the lines are worth 10 and the dots are worth one,' she explained.
'So this adds up to 92, but what is he supposed to do with that information?
'Are they asking you to trade one line for 10 blocks or something?'
The answer was not obvious to many who were just as perplexed as the mother.
'I feel like these questions are less about maths and more about getting your kid to talk about what they do in class,' one user replied.
'Good question. This looks just like the stuff my first-grader brings home too. Some of these questions are so obscure!' another wrote.
But others were quick to crack the code, explaining the question is most likely asking to use a different amount of lines and dots to make 92.
'Your son is right about the symbols.
'They show he has 92 (nine tens sticks and two ones). I'm not sure what they mean by making an exchange though, and I am an elementary school teacher (4th grade),' someone answered.
'I would guess that they mean to show 92 by having eight lines of ten and 12 ones or something like that.'
'My guess is yes, they are looking for you to draw an extra ten dots and one less line. So it would be 8 lines and 12 dots,' another agreed.
'When I was in school we had little plastic squares and lines for learning units. They probably represent the same thing, a third added.
'I thought so. However, unless there is something in the problem demonstrating that a line is a tens rod, it's just not very intuitive to teach or learn,' another pointed out.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Martin Offiah's son wants to break scoring record — then star in Hollywood
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How sorry are you? Why learning to apologise well could save your relationships
Got something to say sorry for? Here are words that have no place in your apologies, according to those who have spent years analysing them: 'It was not my intent'. 'What I meant was'. 'Sorry you misunderstood'. And any use of the word 'obviously'. Marjorie Ingall and Susan McCarthy call it 'bad apology bingo'. They have heard a lot of them as co-authors of Sorry, Sorry, Sorry: The Case for Good Apologies and the blog Sorrywatch, where they critique public apologies. 'We've looked at so many studies, from so many different fields, on what makes an effective apology,' Ingall says. After 10-plus years of Sorrywatch, they have also seen apologies so bad they warrant apologies of their own. ''Sorry if', 'sorry but', 'sorry I forgot that you don't really have a sense of humour about that' … The line between explanation and excuse is very porous, and very thin.' At their best, apologies can not only repair relationships but make them more resilient. The trouble is, they are hard to do – or at least to do well. One ill-considered or misplaced word can not only fail to secure forgiveness but make the situation worse. How can you say sorry, and convey that you really mean it – and why do we find it so difficult? 'In general, we want to feel good about ourselves, and for people to think positively of us,' says Karina Schumann, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, who has extensively studied the science of apology. By taking responsibility for hurting someone's feelings, or messing up at work, we threaten our image of ourselves as moral or competent. 'We really have a hard time associating ourselves with those wrongful actions,' Schumann says. Further complicating matters is the fact that blame is rarely clearcut, even when we accept we're at least somewhat at fault. 'It can be really difficult to say, 'Yes, I'm responsible' when I also see you – or the situation – as responsible.' You can reference those extenuating circumstances in your apology, Schumann says – it just has 'to be done really carefully'. Often people who have been wronged struggle to understand why: 'Why did this person do this to me? Is it because they don't value our relationship? Were they trying to hurt me intentionally?' That ambiguity can compound hurt feelings and create bigger rifts. Giving context in an apology – about your reasoning, for example, or emotional state – can help prevent further misunderstanding, according to Schumann. 'But you still need to accept the responsibility for the harm, and the consequences.' Various studies have identified a certain number of steps to an effective apology, from five steps to seven. Schumann's own framework has eight, though she thinks of them more as elements you can drawn on, depending on the situation and particular misdemeanour, than steps you must follow. 'I would never advise going through it like a checklist,' she says. Sometimes, acknowledging the harm you've caused will be the most pressing part of your apology; other times the emphasis will be on repairing the relationship. 'It's going to be really important that this person feels that you are committed to never behaving this way again, that this was a one-time mistake,' Schumann says. One essential yet often overlooked step is actually saying the words 'I am sorry' or 'I apologise'. 'They need to hear that very clear, strong signal,' Schumann says. 'If that's missing, then you can say all the rest, and some people might not register it as an apology.' Equally, she goes on: 'There are certain words that immediately undermine the value of an apology.' One is 'but'. 'People hear defensiveness, as opposed to accountability.' Even if you have points to get off your chest, it may be best to hold off until you are on firmer footing. 'We have a tendency to want apologies to be this immediate fix,' Schumann says. 'What they should be is a signal for a broader process of reparation, and commitment to restoring the relationship.' That doesn't have to be made explicit, says Schumann – but implicit to the apology is often a commitment to doing better in future. 'What's really important with these promises to behave better is that you have to back it up and live by what you're saying. And, if you don't think you can, don't say those words, because it's going to backfire.' Where saying more can help (rather than hinder) your apology is in demonstrating awareness of the impact on the other person. 'You should specify what you are sorry for, and show that you understand why it was hurtful,' Ingall says. As well as demonstrating empathy and self-reflection, this gives the other person a chance to clarify. Regardless of what they have to say, it's important to listen, Ingall says. 'The thing that people want most is to be heard and understood … The apology is not about you; it's about the recipient.' Offering reparations can help communicate your selflessness, Ingall adds – and those can take many forms, such as flowers. After she and her husband fight, he gets to work on jobs around the house or takes on more of the cooking. 'He is not great with the words – but he does the acts of service,' Ingall says. Research suggests your apology may indeed be more persuasive if you're seen to be making an effort – but that can go beyond gifts and household chores. A study found that people perceive apologies using longer words (but still common and easy-to-understand) as being more genuine. Shiri Lev-Ari, the paper's author, says it is received as akin to investing time or money in making amends. 'If the person inconveniences themselves in order to apologise, you can say: 'Okay, they mean it.'' That we seem to intuitively understand this reflects our attention to navigating these nuanced social dynamics, Lev-Ari says: as much as we might agonise over apologising, much of what makes it effective (or not) is unspoken and even subconscious. 'Without realising, we also choose words because of their forms, such as how long they are, not just what they mean.' The gender split is less significant than you might think. According to Schumann's research, women report apologising more frequently than men do but it's not because they are more willing or able. It reflects instead a difference of perception, she says. Men just have higher thresholds than women do for what constitutes an apology-worthy offence, Schumann found. When that threshold is met, 'they're just as willing'. That is distinct from the stereotype that men are prevented by their ego from apologising, even when they know they're wrong, Schumann points out. For one study, she asked (straight, married or cohabiting) couples to each keep a daily diary of apology-worthy offences they either committed or were committed against them. The accounts only aligned 35% of the time. 'It really speaks to the need for people to communicate,' Schumann says. 'The majority of the time we are hurting each other, it's not out of malicious intent.' One way to make your apology more effective is to demonstrate a genuine effort to understand the other person's perspective. Instead of assuming you know how they feel, Schumann says, ask questions. 'Open the space for learning about each other.' All the experts agree apologising can be agonising even for the most apologetic, empathetic person. It doesn't help that we don't often get to see it modelled well. Most public apologies tend to be about PR rather than real remorse. Leaders are actually taught to deflect responsibility. And, though parents might fight in front of their children, they often make up in private. When Ingall and McCarthy started writing Sorrywatch, in 2012, their focus was on making fun of celebrities' non-apologies. The project became more civic-minded post-Trump. 'We wanted to show that an apology is really an act of strength.' A good apology, after all, demands vulnerability: it is an admission that we failed to live up to our own and shared standards, Ingall says. But it's also a tool by which we can repair bonds, strengthen them and show how much they mean to us. 'Should you ever apologise if you're not sorry? Sometimes – if you value the relationship more than being right.'
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
At 21, Madison Griffiths dated her university tutor. It was legal, consensual – and a messy grey area
At the tail end of 2023, author Madison Griffiths posed a question on her Instagram: 'Has anyone here ever been in a relationship with a professor or a tutor?' Hundreds of responses flooded in. There were those who revealed that their parents had met, many decades prior, in the lecture hall. Younger women reported they'd recently been involved with a university superior. Their experiences were diverse, but what united those who messaged her was gender: no men came forward to say they had been in relationships with a professor or tutor. In Griffiths's inbox, at least, it was all women. For Griffiths, the question had been a personally motivated one. When she was 21, about 18 months after she'd been in his class, she asked a university tutor she had a crush on out for a drink, attracted by his intelligence and charm. They started dating and spent the next five years in an on-and-off relationship, Griffiths changing her university major to avoid winding up in his class again. They were only separated by a handful of years in age but in the time since their breakup, Griffiths found the afterlife of that romance 'convoluted and complex in a way that I hadn't encountered in other relationships'. 'From 19 years old, my dynamic with him was one where I put him on a pedestal and I wanted him to really 'see me'… and I think that had everything to do with the implicit power imbalance that operated right from the get-go,' Griffiths says. 'It wasn't until the relationship's fallout that I started reflecting on these things.' The conversations she had as a result of that Instagram post snowballed into something bigger. Both Griffiths's own experience and that of four of the women who reached out after her Instagram call-out would form the basis of a new book, Sweet Nothings, which explores the ethics and mechanics of 'pedagogical relationships': those between student and teacher, and a phenomenon Griffiths regards as highly gendered. Griffiths spent a year speaking to her four case studies, women now in their 30s and 40s who had 'lived lives well and truly outside of these relationships' and were now able to reflect on what had been. She readily admits that she was probably subconsciously 'looking for women that reminded me somewhat of myself, or could help me make sense of my own [experience]'. In her quest to understand these dynamics, Griffiths also spoke to male professors and tutors who had slept with a student – but not the ones who'd had relationships with her four subjects, to protect their anonymity. (Her subjects are also given pseudonyms and minor elements of their stories, like placenames, were fictionalised to obscure them.) Sweet Nothings is being published into a cultural moment that feels perhaps ready to begin reckoning with professor-student relationships. It arrives just ahead of A24's Sundance winner Sorry, Baby, about one woman's residual trauma from such a relationship, and not long after both New Yorker fiction and Diana Reid's bestselling novel Love & Virtue on the same topic. Perhaps most importantly, it comes in the long shadow of the #MeToo movement, as the conversation has expanded, sometimes uncertainly, to consensual relationships that feel not-quite-right – and what, exactly, in the arena of sex deserves our condemnation. Griffiths focused specifically on relationships that happened at university, where both parties were adults, and no abuse involving minors or high school students. What makes these relationships interesting to Griffiths is the grey area they operate in. Sex between a student and a professor is not against the law and, in many cases, not even expressly against university policy – yet these relationships can leave a lifelong mark on the women who enter them. 'I was particularly interested in sex that was 'problematic' but not necessarily 'bad',' Griffiths says. 'Every woman I spoke to was of the age of consent – [but] well and truly nursing a unique harm. The women that I was in conversation with didn't necessarily feel as if something completely, egregiously untoward took place within the framework of consent. It was something else entirely.' What unfurls in Sweet Nothings is an examination of the way men in positions of authority can appeal to women when they are younger, at a moment in their lives when they perhaps feel that youth and beauty afford them a power of its own. Instead of flat condemnations, Griffiths wanted to highlight the agency a lot of these women had in procuring these relationships and explore their own desires. But she found that some men appeared over time, as one character notes, 'vile, dull and obvious' for using their sway in the classroom to get with women, sometimes many years their junior, who wouldn't look twice at them in a pub. A complicated shame and anger often bloomed as women looked back on these relationships in the rear-view mirror, their memories of university forever soured. Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning Two of her subjects had seen their former professor or tutor go on to date other students after their own breakup. The revelation that they may have been part of a kink, 'as opposed to necessarily someone who met the love of their life in the wrong outfit, in the wrong place, in the wrong time, did quite severe harm to these individuals' sense of self,' Griffiths says. So too did realising that a man they once idolised, who has a mastery of the field they aspire to work in, had made their relationship about sex when perhaps what they were really craving was to be told they could 'be him one day'. It perhaps won't surprise you to hear that Lisa Taddeo's Three Women, the 2019 bestseller about the sex lives of three real American women (including one who, at age 17, had a sexual relationship with her high school teacher), was an inspiration for Griffiths. Sign up to Saved for Later Catch up on the fun stuff with Guardian Australia's culture and lifestyle rundown of pop culture, trends and tips after newsletter promotion But another book looms much larger: Helen Garner's The First Stone, mentioned directly in Sweet Nothings as a book Griffiths finds both compelling and aggravating. Garner's 1995 account of two University of Melbourne students who accused a residential college master of sexual assault has been critically re-evaluated in recent years for its often-scathing cynicism towards its female subjects. Garner herself had an affair with an older tutor while at university, she revealed in The First Stone – but didn't view it as an abuse of power, and regarded the young women's decision to lodge a complaint with police over being groped as a 'heartbreaking' overreaction and affront to feminist ideals. Griffiths read Garner's book twice while writing her manuscript, determined to do her own differently. Garner didn't interview the women involved in the case for The First Stone – they had declined her interview requests – and Griffiths found the absence of their voices distracting. She very deliberately made her female subjects the centre of her story and is happy to be writing in an era when 'we can speak in less sweeping terms' about gender and consent. 'I think older generations have a very cartoonish view of an assailant and his prey,' she laughs. But even 30 years on from The First Stone, Griffiths found she and her subjects still brushed up against an attitude of, as she puts it, 'Well, what did she get out of it?' Despite typically being in only their late teens or early 20s, Griffiths found that uni students are seen as capable and headstrong, and therefore unable to be victimised like a high school student who is just a couple years younger than them. That disregard for uni students, paired with the innate respect professors enjoy, has muddied understandings of power and allowed men at universities to do what they like. 'There is certainly a class dimension to all of this,' Griffiths says. 'I think professors are held to high esteem and are able to operate in [this] way throughout a cultural understanding of them as quite esoteric, niche, unconventional genius. Genius men throughout history have gotten away with a lot.' Sure enough, while two of the four women featured in Sweet Nothings filed complaints against the men they had relationships with, there have been no repercussions for any of the men. There are rules around student-teacher relationships at most Australian universities, Griffiths says, but 'they are open to interpretation'. At many universities, guidelines only apply to relationships between teaching staff and their current students; for Griffiths and two of her subjects, the relationship began after they were in the same classroom. The order of events didn't change the power dynamic. 'One thing that I found was the origin story of all of these relationships, having once met in the classroom, pervaded the relationships at their core. It never went away,' Griffiths says. The women she spoke to remained eager to impress or prove themselves to their former teachers, forever affording them the upper hand. For Griffiths, now aged 31, that has proven true. 'I guess at the core of my almost childish want with him was to be taken seriously,' she says. 'I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a shadow of that in my relationship to my work more broadly.' She hopes that if her former tutor reads her book, he will see that she is able to look at their relationship academically now – 'with the fine-tooth comb that perhaps he didn't teach me'. Sweet Nothings is out now ($36.99)
