On May 23, 2023, @OrwellNGoode tweeted the rate question below, with the “teacher” marking the student’s answer of 20 minutes wrong, and showing why it’d be 15 minutes instead.
I’ve no idea what grade level this math question was being assigned to. Although questions on ratios and rates are formally introduced in grades 5–6 in most parts of the world, however, it’s not uncommon to spot these types of mathematical quickies in grades 1–4 Singapore math olympiad papers to trap the unwary.
Assuming that the word problem didn’t come from a bot or from ChatGPT, the teacher’s intuitive reasoning may be said to be ratio-nally sound but rationally incorrect in solving this pseudo-proportional math question.
Logically or mathematically speaking, few math teachers would disagree that the student was right and the teacher was wrong.
This arguably “badly worded” or “ill-posed” math question provides a fertile ground for a number of possible (valid or creative?) answers, probably much to the annoyance of most math teachers and editors, who often feel uncomfortable or jittery about questions with more than one possible answer.
Indeed, there is no shortage of supporters to defend a “15 minutes” answer. For example, since there is zero mention that the length of each board is of equal length (and we can’t assume it to be so), or as each sawing might take place in a different direction, the “logical” answer of 20 minutes can’t be taken as mathematical gospel truth.
That three pieces need two cuts or sawings is unanimous among problem solvers. The bone of contention is the assumed length of the second cut. Say, if the second cut was half as long as the first one, then it’d take half the time of the first cut, in which case the answer of 15 minutes would be practically plausible.
It looks like we’re only limited by our imagination or creativity to rationalize why the answer can’t in practice be 15 minutes or any other duration, by using a different (creative) reasoning from the flawed one provided by the “teacher.”
Like most artificial or impractical word problems in school math, this rate question debatably falls short of design thinking and is thus open to different interpretations or assumptions, which might also weaponize some “anti-woke” math educators to ban or censor these types of “confusing or tricky” math questions.
Ironically, this is why injecting a dose of realism or creativity to these oft-ill-posed or contrived math questions would help open up the minds of uncritical or unquestioning math educators.
Don’t just answer the questions, question the questions.
© Yan Kow Cheong, May 29, 2023.
© Sidney Harris There is nothing new under the mathematical sun! 
