If a cube is sliced into equal sized smaller cubes, which quantity of smaller cubes could be attained?
a)4 b)16 c)1/4 d)-1/5 e)1
What are the dimensions of the larger cube?
e)1 only with whole cube root
could you explain to me how to solve it please?
KokkoDeRas is right.
You need to find a perfect cube.
The only choice that is a perfect cube is 1.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Pocket_cube_scrambled.jpg
Volume = length * width * height
the test gives you the possible number of smaller cubes [a)4 b)16 c)1/4 d)-1/5 e)1]
they must be the solutions the cube root of an integer, example [a)4 b)16 c)1/4 d)-1/5 e)8] smaller cubes (e)8 cube 2
2*2*2=8
1*1*1=1
what if the options are 4, 16, 25, 36, 64. How would the answer is going to change? I think the answer is 64. could you tell me if the 64 is the right answer?
for Ms.Sue I understand but you have to choose an answer ... but maybe I'm wrong
For jhonn YES
Yes. The cube root of 64 is 4.
To determine the quantity of smaller cubes that could be attained when a cube is sliced into equal-sized smaller cubes, we need to consider the concept of volume and the relationship between the volumes of the original cube and the smaller cubes.
The volume of a cube is determined by multiplying the length, width, and height of one side of the cube. If we slice the cube into equal-sized smaller cubes, the volume of each smaller cube will be a fraction of the original cube's volume.
Let's analyze each option:
a) If the cube is sliced into smaller cubes, the option of 4 smaller cubes is possible. This can be achieved by dividing the original cube into 2 smaller cubes along each dimension.
b) Similarly, if we divide the original cube into 2 smaller cubes along each dimension, we obtain a total of 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 smaller cubes. Therefore, the option of 16 smaller cubes is attainable.
c) If we divide the original cube into smaller cubes, it is not possible to obtain 1/4 smaller cube as a whole number of smaller cubes. So, the option of 1/4 smaller cube is not attainable.
d) Negative quantities of smaller cubes do not make sense in this context, so the option of -1/5 smaller cube is not attainable.
e) Similarly, having a fractional number of smaller cubes does not make sense, so the option of 1 smaller cube is not attainable either.
Therefore, the correct options are a) 4 smaller cubes and b) 16 smaller cubes.