 |
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 02:49 PM
|
|
Algebra Inequality
A Jockey must weigh in at less than 130 pounds. This includes the jockey's weight plus the weight of the blanket, saddle, and bridle. If the combined weight of the equipment is 1/8 of the jockey's weight, what is the maximum a jockey can weigh?
|
|
 |
BossMan
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 02:52 PM
|
|
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 02:53 PM
|
|
Well, that proportion of the 130 pounds can he weigh, if the equipment is 1/8, how much does that leave for the jockey?
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 02:56 PM
|
|
All right... I have tried this (as per your first post) and I have come up with 65... but that seems way to low... I have also gotten 115.5?? I don't know if that second one is right though
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:05 PM
|
|
You didn't answer my question: if the equipment is 1/8, how much does that leave for the jockey?
Just as a proportion.
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
|
|
well... um x+1/8x<130? Is that what you are asking?
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:15 PM
|
|
Okay, say you have a cake. But 1/8 of that cake is your brother's. How much of the cake is yours?
Now say you have a certain weight on a horse. But 1/8 of that weight is the equipment. How much of the weight is left for the jockey?
I hope the answer is obvious now...
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:16 PM
|
|
7/8 is left for the jockey... I think the answer is 115.5
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:19 PM
|
|
130*7/8 is not 115.5
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:22 PM
|
|
I know... but 115.5 as an answer is closer to 130 than 113.75... and if you do 130 *7/8... where do the x's come in?? That is a really confusing way to do it... but the answer doesn't make sense
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:24 PM
|
|
What xs? I don't see any xs. How did you get 115.5?
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:27 PM
|
|
x's an x is what you use in algebra when you don't know a number... so x+1/8x<130... and then I came but with 115.5 because 8(x+1/8x)<130 and then 9x<1040 divided by nine, so x is 115.5
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:33 PM
|
|
The way you worked it out there calculates 8/9 of 130. Do you not think that 7/8 makes more sense?
|
|
 |
New Member
|
|
Jul 17, 2007, 03:35 PM
|
|
Thanks for your help! Night!
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
Gender Inequality
[ 20 Answers ]
I am from India. I am aware that India is currently facing many internal problems and I would like to make people aware of this and persuade them to unite to fight this problem. The problems are
1) Increasing Feminism leading to collapse of social infrastructure.
2) Biased legal system where Laws...
Algebra 2
[ 3 Answers ]
One factor of x^3+4x^3-11x-30 is x+2. What are the other factors?
Algebra 2
[ 1 Answers ]
(5 TO THE POWER OF 4/5 TIMES 5 TO THE POWER OF 4/5) n this whole to the pwer of -10
Cube root of 2 divided by cube root 54
x to the power of 1/3 times x to the pwer of 1/4
square root of 64(x to the poer of 12)
(7 to the power of 3/4) to the power of -2/9
Inequality problems
[ 2 Answers ]
A type of cake requires 150g of flour. Another requires 750g of flour. At most, 2.25kg of flour is available, how do you represent this in an inequality?
A dog owner wants to build a rectangular dog run usiing no more than 20m of fencing. She wants the run to have an area of at least 20 square...
View more questions
Search
|