Area

It also seems to me that C should be the right answer? Yes, can anyone explain why can't it be C?

Oh sorry, I read it wrong. I thought C = 0.5A. It it would be so, yes you can choose C, but if C=o.5B, then it's A.

I would ignore the diagram.

We know that statement 1 doesn't work, because we just have ratios for 3 of the 5 potential areas, but not an actual area measurement for any of the 3 areas.

Statement 2 doesn't work, since we're just given the area of A with no relation to D.

If we combined them, we know the remaining area of the bottom half is 800 (based on statement 2). So we can setup an equation like

B + C + D + X = 800, where x is the unlabeled part.

Given statement 1, we know the C = .5B and D = .5C

So the new equation is B + .5B + .25B + X = 800. Still, we don't know anything about X.

This was a very tricky diagram that's sole purpose is to confuse you. It doesn't help that the question does NOT mention that the diagram is not drawn to scale (and actually cites "in the figure above"). Seems doubly-misleading.

Imagine if you resized the diagram so that B, C and D only took up 1/4 of the entire lot, as opposed to (what it appears like) 7/16 of the lot. That X term would then equal the other quarter of the diagram.

djiddish98 wrote:I would ignore the diagram.

I agree. From the diagram, we are made to believe that the whole figure is a either a square or a rectangle and that region A is a also a rectangle. And by believing this we assume that the region consisting of regions B, C, D and X too, lie in a rectangle.

If that was the case, the region D+X = C, X=D and then the answer to the question would be C but since nothing is mentioned about the diagram, the answer will be E

thanks man. so it comes down the assumption whether that figure is a quadrilateral? as I thought about it more, I dont think it matters. I think the answer is still E even if quad.

djiddish98 wrote:I would ignore the diagram.

We know that statement 1 doesn't work, because we just have ratios for 3 of the 5 potential areas, but not an actual area measurement for any of the 3 areas.

Statement 2 doesn't work, since we're just given the area of A with no relation to D.

If we combined them, we know the remaining area of the bottom half is 800 (based on statement 2). So we can setup an equation like

B + C + D + X = 800, where x is the unlabeled part.

Given statement 1, we know the C = .5B and D = .5C

So the new equation is B + .5B + .25B + X = 800. Still, we don't know anything about X.

This was a very tricky diagram that's sole purpose is to confuse you. It doesn't help that the question does NOT mention that the diagram is not drawn to scale (and actually cites "in the figure above"). Seems doubly-misleading.

Imagine if you resized the diagram so that B, C and D only took up 1/4 of the entire lot, as opposed to (what it appears like) 7/16 of the lot. That X term would then equal the other quarter of the diagram.

This is the figure I was thinking of that would give E (pretend that B,C and D all scale in accordance with Statement 1).




We only have the relationship between B,C and D. There's nothing in either statement that ties them to an actual area and/or the figure overall. And based on this figure, we can't assume that X = D.