I haven't watched the video yet but I'm going to say ahead of time I think the answer might be four. The perimeter of the larger circle is triple the perimeter of the smaller, but that's not what we were asked. As the perimeters are whole-number multiples of one another, the answer has to be a whole number of revolutions, which eliminates A and D, and when you try to draw the circle after one perimeter, it's rotated more than 360 degrees from its start point. 480 degrees in fact. Three perimeters times 480 degrees is 1440 degrees, which is FOUR revolutions, which isn't an available option, which would be why everyone got it wrong.
I understand why you have probably closed comments for the post about what happened in Dakota in the nineteenth century and what is happening in Israel/Palestine now so I am commenting here and hope that is ok. Thank you for that post. I found it moving, challenging dignified and relevant.
I haven't watched the video yet but I'm going to say ahead of time I think the answer might be four. The perimeter of the larger circle is triple the perimeter of the smaller, but that's not what we were asked. As the perimeters are whole-number multiples of one another, the answer has to be a whole number of revolutions, which eliminates A and D, and when you try to draw the circle after one perimeter, it's rotated more than 360 degrees from its start point. 480 degrees in fact. Three perimeters times 480 degrees is 1440 degrees, which is FOUR revolutions, which isn't an available option, which would be why everyone got it wrong.
ReplyDeleteFour is the answer - great reasoning! The video nicely explains why in several ways.
DeleteBrilliant!
ReplyDeleteI understand why you have probably closed comments for the post about what happened in Dakota in the nineteenth century and what is happening in Israel/Palestine now so I am commenting here and hope that is ok. Thank you for that post. I found it moving, challenging dignified and relevant.
ReplyDelete