xilef wrote:didn't I use the same method?

no, you used the expansion of a perfect square binomial. while that method is certainly viable, it has the following disadvantages vis-a-vis the solution i posted:
* it's not obvious
- meaning that you have to come up with the idea to express 99 as (100-1) and so on.
* it requires a great deal more work
- instead of factoring two differences of squares, both of which are already in canonical form, you have to discover, and then factor,
four perfect square trinomials.
with that said, though, two comments:
(1)
if you have a method that's going to work, don't hesitate; use it.
- this is super important. xilef's method is not the
shortest method available - but it definitely solves the problem, and does so in under two minutes. therefore, if you come up with a method that WILL work, then just use it. NEVER just stare at a problem.
(2)
drill the common factoring forms into your head until you can recognize them IMMEDIATELY.
- as stated above
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron