Reply
Mon 21 May, 2007 08:00 pm
Hi,
here is a problem i am reading ,
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of voter turnout . How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
look at the last line How many votes were cast in 1952
my confusion lies ...is that including 10 million more votes ? or without any increase ?
so, what the question is aksing ? whether it wants to get the actual value without increase or the value after 5 % increase in eligible voter .....whats the catch here ?
As it simply asks How many votes were cast in 1952 ...i am bit confused what type of answer its expecting
please some one help me to understand the problem.
Kindly please dont worry about the data . i am more interested to know the output of this problem
thank you
5 percent = 10,000,000
100 percent divided by 5 percent = 20
20 X 10,000,000 = 200,000,000
Re: increase in eligible voter
tintin wrote:Hi,
here is a problem i am reading ,
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of voter turnout . How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
The answer is that whoever is writing textbooks these days are too stupid to formulate logical questions. My sympathies to you, as I have run into the same idiocy.
What class is this for?
They want to know how many votes were actually cast in 1952 based on the fact that for each 5% of the population that is eligible to vote, 10 million votes are cast. If you just knew what percentage of the population is eligible to vote you could guess how many were cast.
FreeDuck wrote:They want to know how many votes were actually cast in 1952 based on the fact that for each 5% of the population that is eligible to vote, 10 million votes are cast. If you just knew what percentage of the population is eligible to vote you could guess how many were cast.
I don't think you even need all of that. Based on the statement, if 5% of eligibles = 10 million votes. The eliglibles population # is really not needed since they are only asking for the approx number of actual votes - not eligibles.
5% is 1/20th of the voting population so 10 million x 20 = 200 million (as C.I. mentioned).
(Just under 62 million people did vote in the actual 1952 Pres. election btw!)
I thought the 5% was of the population, not of the eligibles. Am I reading it wrong?
Free Duck, Irregardless of the "population," it says 5% equals 10,000,000.
This is a math question and a fairly simple one at that.
If 5% of a number is 10,000,000 what is the number?
(.05) Z= 10,000,000
Solve for Z
"How many votes were cast" means they want the actual number, not the number plus 5%.
The 5% eligible is modified by the "same % of voter turnout." The % of voter turn out cancels itself out in any equation.
Re: increase in eligible voter
okie wrote:
The answer is that whoever is writing textbooks these days are too stupid to formulate logical questions. My sympathies to you, as I have run into the same idiocy.
This is the same type of algebra problem that has been used since algebra was first taught in schools hundreds of years ago. Students always hate the problems but they are often quite simple and often relate to the real world.
If 5% of your antifreeze/water is missing and you put in a cup of antrifreeze/water to replace it, how much does your radiator hold assuming the ratio of anrifreeze to water is the same in your radiator and what you added? Give the answer in cups and quarts.
I understand there has been lot of confusion started in this question. Mr duck was correct in his line.
I did not want to put the data .
The thing is ,
there was some population .
x % of the population is eligible to vote
y% of the eligible voter ( people might have some work ! and so they did not come to vote) came to vote .
and thus you get the actual vote casted .
thats the flow.
However , i had no issue with these kind of formulation.
i was stuck with the output .
i thought whether the output would contain the incremental data or the old data ?
I think you are hopelessly confused. I think you might want to consider switching to a different class.
Another look at the question:
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of voter turnout . How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
I think imposter, fishin, and Parados are correct, it is probably 200 million. However, I find the question a trick question, because although it does not say the United States in 1952, that is what I sort of assume, and there weren't even 200 million people here then, let alone elgible voters that actually voted. The other trick is how do they define "voter turnout?" Apparently it is only speaking of the registered voters, but I still find the question somewhat ambiguous as some might express voter turnout as a percentage of citizens of voting age. Oh well.
okie, You are confused too! It's a straight math question; no tricks involved.
okie wrote:I think you are hopelessly confused. I think you might want to consider switching to a different class.
Another look at the question:
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of voter turnout . How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
I think imposter, fishin, and Parados are correct, it is probably 200 million. However, I find the question a trick question, because although it does not say the United States in 1952, that is what I sort of assume, and there weren't even 200 million people here then, let alone elgible voters that actually voted. The other trick is how do they define "voter turnout?" Apparently it is only speaking of the registered voters, but I still find the question somewhat ambiguous as some might express voter turnout as a percentage of citizens of voting age. Oh well.
How they express voter turnout is irrelevant. It cancels out in any equation. This is simply a math question and should not have been posted in the politics section. It has nothing to do with reality of who voted in 1952 in the US. The problem is not with the question but with those that can't step out of their political mode long enough to see this has nothing to do with politics. It is NOT a trick question. It is NOT an example of schools trying to decieve anyone. It is a simple algebra problem. Anyone in jr high should be able to do the math. The question that started this thread was about the use of English and which vote total was wanted.
The equation is
.05(population)(voterturnout)= 10 million
But (votes cast) = (population)(voterturnout)
That leaves us with the simple equation .05(votes cast) = 10 million. We simply solve for votes cast which is what the question asks for.
If voter turnout is sometimes expressed as a percent of population, then the basic premise of the question could be fraudulant, because if the the same percent of the population voted, there would not have been 10 million more votes. There would have instead been the same number of votes. I think the question would have been clearer by saying:
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of elgible voters had voted. How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
I recently helped someone study some questions for a test, and I was appalled at how ambiguous some of them were. The above isn't too bad if you study it closely, but based upon that experience I had recently, I concluded the people making up the test needed to go back to school instead of trying to teach other people something. Ambiguous questions are not totally uncommon, and I am sure everybody can remember debates about questions, as to how they should have been interpreted, after the test results were handed back. I remember some questions being thrown out by the teacher, accompanied by an apology, and the tests regraded. However, I think the problem of ambiguous questions has become worse in the classroom, if my recent experience was any indicator.
okie wrote:If voter turnout is sometimes expressed as a percent of population, then the basic premise of the question could be fraudulant, because if the the same percent of the population voted, there would not have been 10 million more votes. There would have instead been the same number of votes. I think the question would have been clearer by saying:
In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of elgible voters had voted. How many votes were cast in 1952 ?
I recently helped someone study some questions for a test, and I was appalled at how ambiguous some of them were. The above isn't too bad if you study it closely, but based upon that experience I had recently, I concluded the people making up the test needed to go back to school instead of trying to teach other people something. Ambiguous questions are not totally uncommon, and I am sure everybody can remember debates about questions, as to how they should have been interpreted, after the test results were handed back. I remember some questions being thrown out by the teacher, accompanied by an apology, and the tests regraded. However, I think the problem of ambiguous questions has become worse in the classroom, if my recent experience was any indicator.
It's plain English and simple math. There is nothing ambiguous about it when you analyse the sentence structure. There is nothing in the statement about voter turnout being a percentage of population. Voter turnout is a percentage of eligible voters. eligible voters are a percentage of the population. There is nothing fraudulent in the question. Questions can seem ambiguous if someone doesn't understand English. Failure to understand English can be a sign of alzhiemers.
okie: I recently helped someone study some questions for a test, and I was appalled at how ambiguous some of them were.
If you fail to understand the simple math problem presented here, what are you doing tutoring kids?
parados wrote:
The equation is
.05(population)(voterturnout)= 10 million
But (votes cast) = (population)(voterturnout)
That leaves us with the simple equation .05(votes cast) = 10 million. We simply solve for votes cast which is what the question asks for.
I think our tintin has the information he was looking for, but I still don't agree with the math, and I know I'm in the minority on this, but my disagreement has nothing to do with politics. Assuming that what you are calling voterturnout is the rate of votes to eligible voters, then your second equation assumes that 100% of the population is eligible to vote. If he does not know the rate of turnout or the percentage of population that is eligible to vote then he doesn't have enough information to solve the problem. But he says there is more information, just that he hasn't posted it, so I'm guessing he does have the percentage of eligible voters. In that case, it IS a simple algebra problem.
The problem as presented: "In 1952 , if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast , assuming the same percentage of voter turnout . How many votes were cast in 1952?"
"If another 5 percent of the populatin had been eligible to vote..."
It doesn't matter what the population is, because "10 million more votes would have been cast."
Therefore: the 5 percent equals 10 million votes. Simple math question; no tricks.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace