But then you couldn't account for negative numbers. I guess Chinese first graders haven't learned negative numbers yet.
But that is precisely why zoids' solution makes the most sense. You never get negative numbers because you only subtract when the number you subtract from is bigger. justtxyank, your solution would make logical sense if all you saw were the numbers, but the thing is clearly designed to take the shapes into account and yours completely disregards them.
After reading parts of this thread and googling the question, I conclude this 'math problem' is complete bs.
I have no clue at all on what and how to solve. On a side note, this paper talks about challenging math problems for primary school students in Singapore. Challenging Mathematics in Primary School National Exam in Singapore
i got 3 ( zoids had the same reasoning I had to get the answer) its not super difficult but not something I would give to first graders thats for sure.
Who knew that a 1st grade math problem for Chinese students would be as difficult to solve/obtain an answer? This problem has nothing on proving Fermat's Last Theorem, let me tell you!
as a math problem, this is unsolvable without the stipulation that it's for 1st graders which is assumed to mean only addition and subtraction. Otherwise you end up with any combination of mathematical operations that can be performed on the "shapes" and end up with those answers.
She only posts every now and then. And she also says "your mom" a lot. (well, at least to me, she does)
Shapes, right.. did anybody see my explanation? I think it's right :grin: Row 1 has common shape in circle so 3 + 1 = 4. Divide 4 by 2 (since there are two shapes) and you get 2. Row 2 has common shape in triangle so 6 + 4 = 10. Divide 10 by 2 (since there are two shapes) and you get 5 Row three has circle and triangle. So 2 + 5 = 7. Answer is 7! Right?
uhhh...i dont think that's the solution suggested by the picture. in any case what you're saying doesn't make sense because in each scenario your value for the square is different. the rationale for dividing by 2 is weak, the value of the respective shapes can't be found using your method since you assume that square = 0, which is never stated or indicated in any way.
