|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 91
Location: Prague, CZ
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness [#permalink]
 16 Jul 2006, 07:52
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The cost of a square slab is proportional to its thickness and also proportional to the square of its length. What is the cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 meter thick?
(1) The cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.2 meter thick is $160 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.1 meter thick.
(2) The cost of a square slab that is 3 meters long and 0.1 meter thick is $200 more than the cost of a square slab that is 2 meters long and 0.1 meter thick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 373
Schools: Kellogg School of Management
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 3
|
D
in both cases we can get eqs to solve for const in l^2*thk*Const
so we can calculate the ans
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 1
|
Got D.
On solving either of the statements, we can get the value of the constant and can then find the required cost of the slab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1744
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
D.
Given
C = K*W*L^2 where K is the constant
1) K*W1*L1^2 - K*W2*L2^2 = 160
Can find K from here.
2) similar to 1
Hence D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
