Question 433140
<font face="Times New Roman" size="+2">


Your analysis is spot on and the correct way to do the problem.  The only thing I would do differently relates to your arithmetic.  Km per week actually calculates out to about 382 and 1/3 km, so the total is closer to 1147 than it is to 1146.  In the grand scheme of things, no big deal, but attention to detail does count in real life.


Using *[tex \Large d\ =\ rt] in the context of this problem is completely inappropriate.  Remember what the variables mean:  *[tex \Large d] is distance, *[tex \Large r] is rate (aka speed), and *[tex \Large t] is time (as in the amount of time that the object is moving at the given rate).  Distance is the answer you are trying to achieve, but you couldn't care less how fast they drive the car nor how much time the car was actually moving.  The time units in play in your problem, namely weeks, are not related to the amount of time the car was actually moving.  If they average only 40 km/hr (roughly 25 mph), they would be driving less than 10 hours out of 168 hours available in a week. See?


John
*[tex \LARGE e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0]
My calculator said it, I believe it, that settles it
<div style="text-align:center"><a href="http://outcampaign.org/" target="_blank"><img src="http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c116811/scarlet_A.png" border="0" alt="The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism" width="143" height="122" /></a></div>
</font>