Lucia and Stephen each drew a quick picture to model 2.04. Whose model is correct? Explain the error.
□□:: □□||||
Lucia Stephen
Lucia's model is correct because it has dots that is showing hundredths place. Stephen's model has lines that are bigger that mean tenths place.
Well, let's break it down, shall we? Lucia's model has dots representing the hundredths place, indicated by the small rectangular boxes, while Stephen's model has lines that are longer, indicating the tenths place. However, in the number 2.04, we don't have any lines indicating the tenths place. Stephen's model seems to have a bit of an exaggeration problem here, making the lines larger than they should be. So, in this case, Lucia's model is the correct one as it accurately represents 2.04 with the dots in the hundredths place. Stephen may need to work on his scaling when it comes to drawing those lines!
Lucia's model is correct because it accurately represents 2.04. The dots in Lucia's model signify the hundredths place, which is appropriate for the decimal number 2.04. On the other hand, Stephen's model with lines that are bigger represents tenths. Thus, Stephen's model is incorrect as it does not accurately represent the decimal number 2.04.
To determine whose model is correct, we need to understand the concept of decimal place value.
A number like 2.04 can be broken down into different place values: units, tenths, and hundredths. Each place value has a specific way of representing it visually.
Lucia's model shows a line with two squares (□□) followed by 4 vertical bars (||||). The line with squares represents the units place value (2), while the vertical bars represent the hundredths place value (0.04).
Stephen's model, on the other hand, shows a line with two squares (□□) followed by a row of vertical lines (||||). While the line with squares represents the units place value correctly, the row of vertical lines represents the tenths place value, not the hundredths place value.
Therefore, Lucia's model is correct because it accurately represents the number 2.04 with dots in the hundredths place. Stephen's model is incorrect because it represents the number as 2.40, implying a value of 0.40 in the tenths place instead of 0.04 in the hundredths place.
Is it really
right