Let the radius of smaller circle be r

Let the radius of bigger circle be 2r

Now if the to complete the bigger circle the entire diameter will be 4 times that of the smaller circle. hence its 4.

Here dont we need to find the circumference of the circle..Why we need to calculate the area?pls clarify?

Hi,
I also followed the same approach but since in the question it was asked that how many times more paint is needed to paint the larger sign..
I subtracted the larger circle with that of the smaller circle. so the answer I got was 4-1 =3.

I feel for the answer to be 4 the question, the word more should have been omitted would have been something like
the paint on the larger cirlce would be how many times that of the smaller circle

Can somebody clear this doubt?

Bunuel
Hi, the answer is stated as 4 on the forum whereas I think it is 3 because of the word "more". Why is it 4?

...........how many times more paint is needed to paint the larger sign..............

Two circular road signs are to be painted yellow. If the radius of the larger sign is twice that of the smaller sign, how many times more paint is needed to paint the larger sign (assuming that a given amount of paint covers the same area on both signs)?

A. 2
B. 3
C. 4
D. 3 /2
E. 3/5

Why the correct answer isn't choice B.?

The question says: how many times MORE paint...
So, it should be 4 - 1 times. We have to minus one (the current amount) because the question asks for MORE paint.

Why is this thinking wrong?

No, that's not the case. I understand why many people think this, when they compare this wording with the wording we use with percentages -- because "400% greater" does not mean the same thing as "400% of", it might seem that "4 times more" should mean a different thing than "4 times as many". But "4 times more" and "4 times as many" mean the same thing, just because of idiomatic usage in English. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, quoted here, says this:

The fact is that "five times more" and "five times as much" are idiomatic phrases which have - and are understood to have - exactly the same meaning. The "ambiguity" of _times more_ is imaginary: in the world of actual speech and writing, the meaning of _times more_ is clear and unequivocal. It is an idiom that has existed in our language for more than four centuries

The quote above applies to similar phrases, like "five times greater" (as the longer quote at the link makes clear). Even if this meaning might seem illogical to some (because of the analogy with how we discuss percentages), it's an idiom, and idioms don't always obey logic. If you read "x is five times greater than y" or "x is five times more than y", or "x is greater than y by a factor of 5", those phrases all mean "x = 5y".

Dear Bunuel VeritasKarishma chetan2u GMATGuruNY IanStewart DmitryFarber RonPurewal ccooley MathRevolution,

Why the correct answer isn't choice B.?

The question says: how many times MORE paint...
So, it should be 4 - 1 times. We have to minus one (the current amount) because the question asks for MORE paint.

Why is this thinking wrong?
(Many posters above have the very same query but IMO has not been addressed yet)

Dear Bunuel VeritasKarishma chetan2u GMATGuruNY IanStewart DmitryFarber RonPurewal ccooley MathRevolution,

Why the correct answer isn't choice B.?

The question says: how many times MORE paint...
So, it should be 4 - 1 times. We have to minus one (the current amount) because the question asks for MORE paint.

Why is this thinking wrong?
(Many posters above have the very same query but IMO has not been addressed yet)