Shelia, Jason, Jamarla, and Shaka each found the percent of 15 out of 25. Circle the method

Question

that most closely matches how you would solve the problem.
Shelia's Method
15 ÷ 25 = 0.6
0.6 is
101
Lo is equivalent to 10o
Jason's Method Do the other three methods make sense mathematically? Why or
why not?
15 out of 25 is equivalent to 60% out of 100%.
Jamarla's Method
x = 15
100
25 x 4 = 100, so 15 × 4 = x. x = 60
60%
Shaka's Method
15 ÷ 25 = 0.6
0.6 × 100 = 60
60%

Answer 1

Let's evaluate each person's method for finding the percentage of 15 out of 25, and we'll see if they make sense mathematically.

Shelia's Method

1. She calculates $15÷25=0.6$.
2. She seems to have an unclear follow-up statement about it being equivalent to "101 Lo". This part is confusing and not mathematically correct.

Jason's Method

1. He states that "15 out of 25 is equivalent to 60% out of 100%." This is a valid way to look at it but lacks a clear, step-by-step explanation. The idea is correct, but without a clear calculation process, it is less informative.

Jamarla's Method

1. Jamarla sets up an equation $x=\frac{15}{25}\times 100$.
2. She rightly says that $25\times 4=100$, which is 4 times to scale up to 100%.
3. Then she states that $15\times 4=x$, resulting in $x=60$.
4. This method is clear and correct, leading to the correct conclusion of 60%.

Shaka's Method

1. Shaka calculates $15÷25=0.6$ like Shelia.
2. He then correctly multiplies by 100: $0.6\times 100=60$.
3. This method is straightforward and also leads to the correct conclusion.

Summary

• Shelia's Method includes some unclear and incorrect statements, so it lacks clarity and correctness.
• Jason's Method is conceptually correct but lacks detail and rigor in his calculations.
• Jamarla's and Shaka's Methods are both mathematically sound and clear. Both properly arrive at the result of 60%.

In conclusion, the most reliable methods are Jamarla's and Shaka's, as they include correct calculations and clear reasoning. Jason's method is conceptually valid, but it would have benefited from more detailed calculations. Shelia's method contains a major flaw and is not recommended.