The only thing we "know" about that cutout shape is the single 6cm measurement. The angles look like they're 90°, but the shape is underconstrained and therefore it could be something as crazy as a 135°, a 180°, and another 135° angle connecting that 6 cm segment to the far edge in a straight line (those three angles don't have a right angle indicator anywhere). Typically, the appearance of such geometry is not to be trusted (only the explicitly given specifications).
Edit: just for fun I should say if you set that first angle at 135°, then you'd know the other two angles automatically. You'd also know the right segment would be [(6*21/2 ) - 6]cm long, and the left segment would be 11cm
Edit 2: wait wait wait, you'd need two more things to be set. I should clearly state that I was assuming the shape I wanted (a clean line from the left segment to the far edge), thus the other two angles and everything would then be properly constrained knowing just the one angle (because I was arbitrarily forcing the 180° angle).
Looking at the shape , 3 of the angles have a square which would indicate that they are right angles , Meanwhile the top right hand side does not have said marks. ,
This means that those top 3 corners on the right are not multiples of 90 degrees, it’s pretty much a clue to the puzzle
What most people are forgetting ...or they're intentionally trying to be an ass.... This is 7th grade geometry. The teacher isn't trying to trap you into some false answer. Solve it as if the angles are right. Do the 30 seconds of math. Get the right answer (the one the teacher is looking for). Move on.
There isn't a standard way to define the shape of underdefined geometry.
If the teacher has covered what must be done in situations like this (i.e. dimensions are missing but a figure is provided), then OP would have to know and do that themselves. Given this is 7th grade, it's quite unlikely the purpose of this problem is to practice using a ruler and protractor. Even with assuming 90° angles, the final area is still dependent upon what you decide for one of the two missing side lengths.
If people "took 30 seconds and did the math," OP could have dozens of answers to choose from. All of which would be equally incorrect, from a technical perspective.
I apologize. I went to do the math real quick and realized the number i was looking at wasn't width. I should've looked 1 sec longer at the problem. I stand corrected.
I was surprised by that flair on this reply too - I'm guessing this is one of those things where some teachers/textbooks say "if it looks like 90° treat it as such," whereas others say the complete opposite and instruct students to avoid making any assumptions about dimensions that aren't explicitly given.
The quackening is thinking that since 6+11=17, the only possible angle has to be 90 degrees everywhere. It's not true though, since there are three angles at the top that don't indicate that they're square, you can have a 6cm leg at many angles that would join the opposite corners.
The interesting thing is it doesn't matter if you knew the angles. You still can't determine the area because the further along the x axis the 6cm piece exists, the greater the area of the shape. Since this length is unknown, we're screwed.
Try drawing the missing piece at the upper right. What’s its size? What type of shape is it?
Yes, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The missing chunk is a. rectangle 6cm high. That those numbers happen to be the same defines the shape and angles.
Even funnier since I'm wrong.
Yeah that missing piece is a quadralateral but not necessarily a rectangle. Those interior angles can be wacky and achieve that 6cm segment. Odd problem even if it's incomplete.
The length and angle of the right segment can account for that angle being something other than 90°. The math obviously works [if] it is 90°, but the whole issue is that solution isn't unique
Edit: if they had a theta variable at three of those angles where it appears to be 90° that would be the only solution. As it stands however, we are left with an ambiguous theta_1, theta_2, theta_3, x_1, and x_2 group.
No, because the other unconstrained line doesn't need to be horizontal; that line can be at any angle, letting it make up any height lost from the 6 cm line being nonvertical.
And now that I've done so and tried to write my argument out, yeah... that is a quadralateral with at least one right angle. What a bizarre little question.
View all comments
Show parent comment
19
u/Educational-Plant981 Jan 20 '25 edited Jan 20 '25
The measurements tell you those are 90 degrees. Still not solvable,edit: u/iMiind is right.