To evaluate Lynn's method for multiplying 44 and 305, let's break down what she's proposing.
Lynn suggests finding \(4 \times 305\) and then doubling that result.
To understand if her method is correct, we can express the calculations mathematically:
-
Calculating the original multiplication directly: \[ 44 \times 305 \]
-
Lynn's method:
- First, calculate \(4 \times 305\).
- Then, double that result, which means multiplying by 2: \[ 2 \times (4 \times 305) = 8 \times 305 \]
So, Lynn’s method effectively calculates \(8 \times 305\) instead of \(44 \times 305\).
To compare:
- \(44\) can be rewritten as \(4 \times 11\), and when we double \(4\), we get \(8\), so:
- \(4 \times 305\) and then doubling gives: \[ 8 \times 305 \]
- \(44 \times 305\) can be rewritten as: \[ (4 \times 11) \times 305 = 4 \times (11 \times 305) \] This means Lynn's method does not account for the additional factor of \(11\) included in \(44\).
Thus, Lynn is multiplying by \(8\) (resulting from \(4\) then doubling), not by \(44\).
The correct option from the provided responses is: Lynn's method will not give her the correct answer. Multiplying by 4 and then doubling the product is the same as multiplying by 8, not by 44.
1 answer