# UCAT questionWatch

#1
Guys need some help:
The way I did this was:
1907:
Ilter bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) = 80mins = 80 miles
2007:
Ilter bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) = 80miles in 130 mins so that's 36.9mph
Can someone please explain why my working out is wrong? I do understand the answer explanation given by the ucat website but my way should also work so please identify why my working is not right. Also, please use minimal text and keep it simple. Thank you.
Last edited by As.1997; 4 weeks ago
0
4 weeks ago
#2
The train isn't travelling at 60mph while its stopped for 6 min at iter junction.
1
#3
(Original post by mqb2766)
The train isn't travelling at 60mph while its stopped for 6 min at iter junction.
That is a very valid point. 6mins (because of the stoppage at ilter junction) + the extra 4 mins of waiting at (ilter junction (2mins) and jadsey park(2mins)) make up 10mins in total whereby the train was not moving. The extra 4 mins I talk about is because before the train departs it actually arrived 2 mins early and this 2 mins counts as time which the train wasn't moving.
0
4 weeks ago
#4
Does it work taking the stops/changes into account.
0
#5
(Original post by mqb2766)
Does it work taking the stops/changes into account.
Yup
1
#6
(Original post by mqb2766)
Does it work taking the stops/changes into account.
Hey, it seems that there is a problem. I just realised by re-checking my working.

The actual working is supposed to be:
1907:
Ilter Bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) takes 70mins = 70 miles (if the train is travelling 60mph)

2007:
Ilter Bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) takes 120 mins. 70 miles in 120 mins = 35 mph

Therefore, it is still wrong even whilst considering the stoppage/waiting times. The reason why I thought it was correct is before (I didn't change the values for 1907 -- I used the 80mins = 80 miles and carried on with the working out with that error).
0
4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by As.1997)
Hey, it seems that there is a problem. I just realised by re-checking my working.

The actual working is supposed to be:
1907:
Ilter Bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) takes 70mins = 70 miles (if the train is travelling 60mph)

2007:
Ilter Bridge (D) to Kendleton (A) takes 120 mins. 70 miles in 120 mins = 35 mph

Therefore, it is still wrong even whilst considering the stoppage/waiting times. The reason why I thought it was correct is before (I didn't change the values for 1907 -- I used the 80mins = 80 miles and carried on with the working out with that error).
1907 should be 70 mins/miles.
2007 shou;d be 105 min = 1.75 hrs
Seems to work.
0
#8
(Original post by mqb2766)
1907 should be 70 mins/miles.
2007 shou;d be 105 min = 1.75 hrs
Seems to work.
Ahh your right. The 2007 tricked me -- the wait at ilter junction is 25mins -- I assumed it was 10mins just as it was for 1907
0
#9
Need some help:

I get what the answer explanation has done but the approach I took should have also worked but it didn't. Can someone explain what is wrong with my working out?
0
4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by As.1997)
Need some help:

I get what the answer explanation has done but the approach I took should have also worked but it didn't. Can someone explain what is wrong with my working out?
Units. Mph, s, .... work in one time unit and convert as appropriate. Also acceleration is not 60.

To find the time and its simpler to use:
S = t*(v+u)/2
To find the distance, ie time*average speed.

Other part should folow on.
Last edited by mqb2766; 4 weeks ago
0
#11
(Original post by mqb2766)
Units. Mph, s, .... work in one time unit and convert as appropriate. Also acceleration is not 60.

To find the time and its simpler to use:
S = t*(v+u)/2
To find the distance, ie time*average speed.

Other part should folow on.
Also, just noticed I wrote a=60 --> this is not the acceleration value rather 60 is the final velocity.
0
#12
Not sure why the answer explanation rounds up each value e.g.
0.95*1.1= 1.045 = 1.05
1.05*1.1= 1.155= 1.16
1.16*1.1= 1.28
1.28*128= 163.84

I just did 0.95*1.1^3 = 1.26445*128= 161.85 which is pretty close to the actual answer but not quite there. I'm assuming we round up so that it is in favour of the person selling the fuel???
Is there any other logical reason behind this? because I find myself in similar situations where I don't get the precise answer due to not rounding.
0
4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by As.1997)
Not sure why the answer explanation rounds up each value e.g.
0.95*1.1= 1.045 = 1.05
1.05*1.1= 1.155= 1.16
1.16*1.1= 1.28
1.28*128= 163.84

I just did 0.95*1.1^3 = 1.26445*128= 161.85 which is pretty close to the actual answer but not quite there. I'm assuming we round up so that it is in favour of the person selling the fuel???
Is there any other logical reason behind this? because I find myself in similar situations where I don't get the precise answer due to not rounding.
They round to 2 dp every quarter as that would be the price each quarter. You'd have to round each increase, not just do them all as a power. There is no rounding up,only rounding to the nearest value.
0
#14
(Original post by mqb2766)
They round to 2 dp every quarter as that would be the price each quarter. You'd have to round each increase, not just do them all as a power. There is no rounding up,only rounding to the nearest value.
Ahh yeah your right, cheers mate.
0
#15
Need some help
From the first line -- what relevance does "before Micheal turned 40 in 2010" have in determining Micheal's age?
Is this just to make things confusing. Because it could be possible for Micheal to be 1 yrs old and Samantha 3 years old and the statement "they adopted 3-year-old Samantha before Micheal turned 40 in 2010" could still be true.
0
3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by As.1997)
Need some help
From the first line -- what relevance does "before Micheal turned 40 in 2010" have in determining Micheal's age?
Is this just to make things confusing. Because it could be possible for Micheal to be 1 yrs old and Samantha 3 years old and the statement "they adopted 3-year-old Samantha before Micheal turned 40 in 2010" could still be true.
It anchors samantha's birth year < 2007 and as Tanya > 2011, it determines C) is the correct answer.
0
#17
(Original post by mqb2766)
It anchors samantha's birth year < 2007 and as Tanya > 2011, it determines C) is the correct answer.
For Samantha, why < 2007? because I would have thought 2010 - 3 = 2007
(if I've not considered something then please do say)
For Tanya, I got she could be born anywhere between 2011 to 2013)
0
3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by As.1997)
For Samantha, why < 2007? because I would have thought 2010 - 3 = 2007
(if I've not considered something then please do say)
For Tanya, I got she could be born anywhere between 2011 to 2013)
They adopted samantha aged 3 before 2010, so <=2007, but i was lax in leaving out the = as it was not important.
As the answrer says Sam must be older.
0
#19
(Original post by mqb2766)
They adopted samantha aged 3 before 2010, so <=2007, but i was lax in leaving out the = as it was not important.
As the answrer says Sam must be older.
Fair enough
0
#20
Need some help

Not sure how to finish off the table. The bit where it says "and the consumption of chocolate was the second-highest" doesn't seem very helpful and limits me from finishing off my table. BTW for the table, the column to the left has the following things written on it:
OW = opening weight
CW= closing weight
Cons= Consumption
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• Regent's University London
Thu, 19 Sep '19
• Durham University
Fri, 20 Sep '19
• Loughborough University
Fri, 20 Sep '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

Rock (188)
23.98%
Pop (191)
24.36%
Jazz (30)
3.83%
Classical (46)
5.87%
Hip-Hop (148)
18.88%
Electronic (53)
6.76%
Indie (128)
16.33%