Date: Thu Oct 31 05:31:24 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Answer(or question to Mentor): Sorry that I did not respond to you about the challenge questions. I really do not understand anything about this new question. I have thought about it for 2 days now and I need some more information to help me get started.
Date: Fri Nov 1 12:14:37 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Mentor Reply: Hi Addison, thank you for responding. I see that you need more information. Consider that 1/3 plus 5 ft. of the pole are sticking out of the ground. Can you tell me what the value of 5 ft. as a fraction is? I hope this helps you start the problem and if you need more help please feel free to send your questions to me.
Elizabeth
Date: Sat Nov 2 10:09:49 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Instructor Comments: Elizabeth,
Once again, I think you need to read your clues really carefully here. You say that 1/3 + 5 feet are sticking out of the ground. THis is not actually true. There is 1/3 (of the part of the pole sticking out of the ground) + 5 feet, which is not the same thing. This student would be inclined to add 1/3 + 5, which is incorrect. Also, what do you mean 5 feet as a fraction? A fraction of what? I don't think this makes sense. Let's modify the clue that I wrote for Julianne so that we can help Addison.
Addison,
This is a really difficult problem, and I am glad that you have been thinking about it! I would be glad to give you a some clues. One way to get all of the information in one place is to draw a diagram. In this case, we have two different situations: a storm surge on the stilt in 2000, and a stilt in the storm of 2002.
Let's look at the diagram for 2000 first and focus on the part of the pole above the water. Note that the problem states that 1/3 of the part of the pole that sticks out was under water. So, if 1/3 of that part is covered by water, then what fraction is NOT covered by water? Now since the problem tells us that 5 feet of the pole were not covered in water, can you figure out how many feet WERE covered by water? Once you know the number of feet covered by water, you can figure out the total number of feet sticking out of the ground.
Once you know the height of the stilt, you can use this information to figure out the height of the swell in 2002.
Hope this helps! Good luck and write back if you need any other clues.
Elizabeth-- can you see how this type of clue would be more specific? I hope that it helps him.
Dr. Bowers
Date: Mon Nov 4 13:06:04 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Mentor Reply: Hi Addison,
This is a really difficult problem, and I am glad that you have been thinking about it! I will be glad to
give you a some clues. One way to get all of the information in one place is to draw a diagram.
In this case, we have two different situations: a storm surge on the stilt in 2000, and a stilt in the
storm of 2002.
Let's look at the diagram for 2000 first and focus on the part of the pole above the water.
Note that the problem states that 1/3 of the part of the pole that sticks out was under water.
So, if 1/3 of that part is covered by water, then what fraction is NOT covered by water?
Now since the problem tells us that 5 feet of the pole were not covered in water, can you figure out
how many feet WERE covered by water? Once you know the number of feet covered by water,
you can figure out the total number of feet sticking out of the ground. Once you know the height of
the stilt, you can use this information to figure out the height of the swell in 2002.
Hope this helps! Good luck and write back if you need any other clues.
Elizabeth
Date: Wed Nov 6 19:12:36 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Answer(or question to Mentor): Elizabeth,
I made the diagram. It did a little bit of help. The answer I got was 2.5 feet. I do not know how I got this. I did the diagram. I drew the pole and did a line for the 1/4 part of the pole underground. I did 3 lines above the underground line. Those lines stood for 1/3. The problem says that 3/4 was aboce water. So i did 4 lines above the line. 1/3 plus 3/4 is 13/12. Which is simplified to eguals 1 1/12. So I did 2ft goes into 5ft 2.5 times. I know my answer is probably wrong but this probelm was really really hard! Thanks for your help!
Addison
Date: Fri Nov 8 22:40:12 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Mentor Reply: Hi Addison, thank you for trying the problem. You were doing find. Do not worry if you did not get the answer correct. I want you to know that you are not the only one who has trouble doing this problems. For me, this was a challenging problem too, but I did not give up and I kept trying. What it counts is that at least we try, don’t you think? (Smile)
This is what I got when I solved the problem, I hope this can help you.
a) The storm surge 5 5/8 feet high. I got this answer by multiplying 7 and a half by ¾ (¾ is what was wet). The 7 and a half is the length of the stilt above the solid ground.
b) 1and 7/8 feet of Andy’s stilt was left dry. I got this answer by subtracting 7 and a half feet minus 5 and 5/8 feet ( ¼ of what was dry).
Thank you for writing back Addison. If you have any questions please feel free to write me back I will be checking for questions. Good bye!
Elizabeth
Date: Thu Nov 14 18:14:22 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Answer(or question to Mentor): Hi!
For problem number 1 I got 6 2/33. I multiplied 14 by 9 which gave me 126. I multiplied 36 by 4 which gives you 144. I multiplied 15 by 4 which gave me 60. Then I added all these together. It was 330. Next I divided 2000/1 bye 330/1. I found the recipocal and went on with the process. I ended up with 1000.165 which is an improper fraction. I divided 100 bye 165 which i then got 6 10/165. I simplified with 5 and my answer was 6 2/33
Date: Tue Nov 19 15:11:07 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Mentor Reply: Hi Addison, thank you for responding to the first question. The process you used in converting grams to calories is correct. I understand that you computed 2000/330.
However, in order to find the fraction of Charle’s daily intake you need to invert the fraction you computed so you can find the correct fraction of the calories she ingested. I hope this explanation is helpful. Good Luck!
Elizabeth
Date: Wed Nov 20 16:28:01 PST 2002
Student's Name: Addison
Instructor Comments: Elizabeth,
This is a good response. I just have one suggestion: Why not try to speak mathematically by stating something like, 'The process you used in converting grams to calories is correct. I understand that you computed 2000/330, and then went on to figure out that this reduces to 6 and 10/165. This answer is incorrect. Let's see if we can figure out why: Notice that 6 and 10/165 is more than 1, which would mean that she ingested more calories eating one cheeseburger than the RDA for the entire day! This is not actually what happened. In fact, what fraction of the 2000 calories allowed per day did she eat?'
Now you can finish the rest of your response. Hope this helps.--Dr. Bowers
