tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post5866536846737818935..comments2017-09-22T10:51:17.808-04:00Comments on (x, why?): June 2017: Common Core Geometry Regents, Part 1(x, why?)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17499160002806879025noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-32708620233358110442017-08-03T14:19:56.466-04:002017-08-03T14:19:56.466-04:00" Likewise, I hope that Mr. Catalfo, upon fin..." Likewise, I hope that Mr. Catalfo, upon finding no correct answer, was wise enough to choose the one that they were looking for. Sadly, sometimes this is how math -- and education, in general -- models the "real world". <br /><br />The author of the above quoted text need not worry. Ben Catalfo was wise enough and smart enough to take the Geometry Regents when he was in 7th grade. He was tutoring students when he discovered the error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-4525736301501374082017-07-25T12:30:24.063-04:002017-07-25T12:30:24.063-04:00On #14, since no information is given about the ce...On #14, since no information is given about the center of dilation, AB and A'B' are not necessarily distinct lines (if the center of dilation lies on AB), and therefore may or may not be parallel. It seems to me that answer choice 1 (II only) should have been the only correct answer. But since apparently choice 3 was intended as the correct answer, credit was given for either 1 or 3 once the error was pointed out.Queens Math Teachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-38159844910431133882017-07-23T18:13:09.846-04:002017-07-23T18:13:09.846-04:00One can prove the sufficiency of choice (2) in que...One can prove the sufficiency of choice (2) in question 24 using high school geometry entirely at the level of the course syllabus (it is even a result in Euclid's Elements, as noted in one of the letters to the editor in today's Newsday, and one can also prove it without digging through The Elements). It is shameful, particularly in the context of geometry (the one high school subject where careful logical reasoning is one of the primary purposes of the entire course), that the Regents will not admit that they have no argument for why their official answer is actually correct (and it is impossible to make any such argument, since a sufficiency proof of the type they claim doesn't exist does in fact exist).Euclidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16435702595335050430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-1341478431001015442017-07-23T08:34:45.534-04:002017-07-23T08:34:45.534-04:00Yes, you are correct. I don't know where my mi...Yes, you are correct. I don't know where my mind was when I typed that. Probably rushing too fast to get everything posted. <br /><br />Thanks for catching the mistake.<br /><br />Correction will be posted later today. (x, why?)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17499160002806879025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-42322988975661281312017-07-22T23:23:13.218-04:002017-07-22T23:23:13.218-04:00Question 11
Answer (4) is the correct answer as pe...Question 11<br />Answer (4) is the correct answer as per State Ed<br />Diagonals of a rhombus DO bisect angles<br /><br />If you draw a basic rhombus (non equal diagonals), choice III doesn't hold true but choices I and II both do. <br /><br />While all squares are rhombuses, all rhombuses are not squares. <br /><br />There is some debate that Answer (1) is also correct because of the wording of the question. Choice III is only true for a square which is a special case rhombus and the "always" in the question was thought to refer to all rhombi (and not only the special case rhombus as a square). The 4 triangles formed would be congruent but not isosceles. <br /><br />I don't normally think of a square as a special case rhombus (or rectangle). <br /><br />Considering that you are a highly experience math teacher, and you made an error about a basic property of all rhombuses, this question seems to be pushing the envelope in terms of what and how it's asking for information. <br />nofuzzymathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17056280201797104452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-5949007934393572422017-07-18T17:50:39.977-04:002017-07-18T17:50:39.977-04:00The previous comment is about Q.24.The previous comment is about Q.24.Alan Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038078195678139205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28172905.post-51621774230248473432017-07-18T17:36:36.001-04:002017-07-18T17:36:36.001-04:00You can prove AA.
See Benjamin Catalfo's work...You can prove AA.<br /><br />See Benjamin Catalfo's work at http://imgur.com/a/nB3V1Alan Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038078195678139205noreply@blogger.com