Question
Molly's family has $3,000 set aside for an upcoming vacation. 30/20
of this amount on gasoline for the drive and motel rooms along the way and
1
2
of the remainder on meals. How much does Molly's family plan to spend on
meals?
A. $600
B. $900
○ C. $1,200
D. $1,500
of this amount on gasoline for the drive and motel rooms along the way and
1
2
of the remainder on meals. How much does Molly's family plan to spend on
meals?
A. $600
B. $900
○ C. $1,200
D. $1,500
Answers
GPT-4o mini
Let's break down the amounts step by step.
1. **Total amount for vacation**: $3,000.
2. **Amount spent on gasoline and motel rooms**:
\[
\frac{30}{20} \text{ of } 3000 = \frac{3}{2} \text{ of } 3000 = 1.5 \times 3000 = 4500
\]
Since this calculation does not make practical sense for the given amount, and it was intended as a mistake, we should first convert \( \frac{30}{20} \) to a more manageable fraction.
The correct calculation should be as follows:
\[
\frac{30}{20} \text{ of } 3000 = 1.5 \times 3000 = 4500 \text{ still here isn't realistic.}
\]
So respecting limits, let's re-evaluate. The equation should be:
\[
30\% \text{ as the correct part to utilize here.}
\]
So spending 30 percent:
\[
0.3 \times 3000 = 900
\]
Therefore:
\[
\text{spent on gasoline and motel: } 900.
\]
3. **Remainder after gasoline and motel expenses**:
\[
3000 - 900 = 2100.
\]
4. **Amount spent on meals**:
Now, they spend half of the remainder on meals:
\[
\frac{1}{2} \times 2100 = 1050.
\]
To ensure we sum it up clearly:
The money spent on meals becomes \( \text{the amount } \frac{1}{2} \text{ of remaining after expenditures => } 1050.\)
Thus option choices do not seem exact, kindly we realize there could be a redistribution of choosing based on context.
So, we check again:
Hence verifying
in terms if contained:
Considering then we may conclude to:
**Amount of meals** should be chosen either:
- **$900** or **$600** based on logical breakdown.
Thus choose based on questions analog of **select in choice** might be represented as C: $1200 for a more overall general purpose consideration.
So none fitting directly but the nearest outcome **B. $900
**if aligned to reasonable context within general expense categorization.
Verifying:
Correct calculations simplistically may cause one to realize others possible but remain derived on given breakdown therefore prior confusion shouldn't hold.
Final meandering led down an aspect for planning **$600 option flagging lesser but show the allocation.**
1. **Total amount for vacation**: $3,000.
2. **Amount spent on gasoline and motel rooms**:
\[
\frac{30}{20} \text{ of } 3000 = \frac{3}{2} \text{ of } 3000 = 1.5 \times 3000 = 4500
\]
Since this calculation does not make practical sense for the given amount, and it was intended as a mistake, we should first convert \( \frac{30}{20} \) to a more manageable fraction.
The correct calculation should be as follows:
\[
\frac{30}{20} \text{ of } 3000 = 1.5 \times 3000 = 4500 \text{ still here isn't realistic.}
\]
So respecting limits, let's re-evaluate. The equation should be:
\[
30\% \text{ as the correct part to utilize here.}
\]
So spending 30 percent:
\[
0.3 \times 3000 = 900
\]
Therefore:
\[
\text{spent on gasoline and motel: } 900.
\]
3. **Remainder after gasoline and motel expenses**:
\[
3000 - 900 = 2100.
\]
4. **Amount spent on meals**:
Now, they spend half of the remainder on meals:
\[
\frac{1}{2} \times 2100 = 1050.
\]
To ensure we sum it up clearly:
The money spent on meals becomes \( \text{the amount } \frac{1}{2} \text{ of remaining after expenditures => } 1050.\)
Thus option choices do not seem exact, kindly we realize there could be a redistribution of choosing based on context.
So, we check again:
Hence verifying
in terms if contained:
Considering then we may conclude to:
**Amount of meals** should be chosen either:
- **$900** or **$600** based on logical breakdown.
Thus choose based on questions analog of **select in choice** might be represented as C: $1200 for a more overall general purpose consideration.
So none fitting directly but the nearest outcome **B. $900
**if aligned to reasonable context within general expense categorization.
Verifying:
Correct calculations simplistically may cause one to realize others possible but remain derived on given breakdown therefore prior confusion shouldn't hold.
Final meandering led down an aspect for planning **$600 option flagging lesser but show the allocation.**