Angela takes a job starting with an hourly wage of ₱3.50 and is promised a raise of ₱5.00 per hour per two months for 5 years. At the end of 5 years, what would be Angela’s hourly wage?

This is the problem our teacher gave us in class (although I changed the name to Angela, it doesn't matter much hahaha). I am confused whether the answer is ₱148.50 or ₱153.50.

Our teacher made it a point that the phrase "at the end of 5 years" is important in determining the correct answer in the problem.

What is the correct answer (with solution) to this problem?

Update:

We have finally agreed that it is ambiguous and the answer may be ₱148.50 or ₱153.50 depending on one's understanding of the problem. In her own understanding, she believes it is ₱148.50.

Thank you everyone for your support and cooperation. 'Till the next time :D

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestThanks everyone once again for your thoughts. I have sent our teacher some picture of it. Perhaps I'll be able to get a more concrete/direct answer from her tomorrow. ^_^

Log in to reply

153.50

Log in to reply

Thank you everyone for your explanations. I would be asking our teacher tomorrow regarding the problem (that is if I remember it). Perhaps I'll post again tomorrow. Once again, thank you to everyone ^_^

Log in to reply

Did you ask?

Log in to reply

Looking forward for it.

Log in to reply

Me too

Log in to reply

I asked our teacher. She first said that the answer is 148.50. Then, I presented some "thoughts/ideas" and told her about this discussion. I'll give her a picture of it. She said she'll study the problem once again and I'll ask her again tomorrow. And she also said that she was confused when she was answering it.

Please do continue to give your thoughts about this problem. Thank you.

Log in to reply

:/ wierd reply.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

We have finally agreed that it is ambiguous and the answer may be ₱148.50 or ₱153.50 depending on one's understanding of the problem. In her own understanding, she believes it is ₱148.50.

Thank you everyone for your support and cooperation. 'Till the next time :D

Log in to reply

I won! My first comment was this only!

Log in to reply

-_- The answer is not 148.50. It can even be 153.50 as angela's teacher specified. so, no one wins :D

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

What is the answer? Is this also ambiguous? I just want to make sure. Our examination in Maths is tomorrow.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

atthe end" means the 8th week has ended so, the answer is 360, the previous one does not provide any such thing.Log in to reply

Log in to reply

In 8 weeks means in the time spent of 8 week which means anyway that the amount of time end at the end of the 8th week but that end is also the beggining of the next week and because they are equal the end being included on one hand in the time spent of 8 weeks while on the other not it is paradoxical.

Log in to reply

@Ashish Siva Ahhh okay I understand now. Thanks

andLog in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Our teacher told me to meet her tomorrow after classes to explain her idea of the problem. She still sticks to the answer being ₱148.50.

I now believe that the problem is ambiguous. Anyone thinks otherwise?

Log in to reply

Somehow and I say somehow because it is not the wording which is ambigous but the concept of what is "end of some period of time" concretely and rigorously.

It is jsut one end of some period of time and therefore is just a correct answer but the problem leads to a paradoxical case in which the end equals the beginning anyway.

Log in to reply

:P Again

Log in to reply

In this problem:

Angela bought a lot at the beginning of 2000 for ₱50, 000. If it increased ₱1, 000 in value each year, how much is it worth at the end of 2025?

Is the answer ₱75,000?

Log in to reply

For this case, then yes, it is 75,000. We are still in 2025, so technically, the addition in value for the 26th year is not added yet.

Though when you think about this logically, the value of land does not suddenly increase once a year. I would like to say that the price increase in the lot is distributed evenly throughout the year, and that on average, it increases about P2.74 a day. Therefore, at the end of 2025, the price of the lot should be somewhere around P75,990.

Though this is totally out of topic, it's something to ponder on. For this kind of questions, what we would usually say is

A better, simpler way to phrase this question

Log in to reply

Yh the word \(\text{at}\) the end of 5 years defines it properly.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

I have another question somehow similar to this.

Angela takes a job starting with an hourly wage of ₱10 and is promised a raise of ₱5 per hour per 12 hours. At the end of the day, what would be Angela’s hourly wage?

Log in to reply

This is a flawed problem. "End of the day" can mean anything.

When math questions are created, they should be specific enough to avoid such ambiguity

Log in to reply

So end of the 5 years is also ambiguous?

Log in to reply

For the original question, to be honest with you, yes, "end of 5 years" is rather ambiguous. We found two different interpretations of the phrase, which led to two different possible answers. Now that I think about it, both are actually acceptable. If this was an exam question, then it is horribly flawed. However, as a discussion question on Brilliant, it is actually quite fun.

However, I still stick by my original answer of P153.50. From a perspective of teaching and learning math, what we want to do here is to test your knowledge on arithmetic progressions. We aren't here to test your language understanding. Therefore, when it is stated "end of 5 years", I would presume that the question is saying "5 years later".

In this case, note that there are \(30\) pay raises in 5 years. The pay after the first raise, \(a_1=8.5\). Therefore,

\(a_{30}=8.5+(30-1)(5) = 8.5 + 145 = 153.5\)

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Hmm, what is the time Angela started working?

Log in to reply

It is not given. But let's just assume that she works non-stop and started working at 6:00 AM on January 1, 2016.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

an = 10 + (2-1)(5) an = 15

Log in to reply

a1 = 3.50 d = 5 n = 12 months x 5 years / 2 = 30

an = 3.50 + (30-1)(5) an = 3.50 + 145 an = 148.50

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

PS. How about changing the question into At the end of 24 hours, what would be her hourly wage? Is the answer still the same, is it still 15?

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

The problem with the 12 hours is different from the problem with the 5 years right? Since for the 5 years the answer may be 148.50 or 153.50 depending on how you understand what the at the end of 5 years meant. Your answer is 153.50 because it means the time when 5 years has passed meaning if I started working Jan. 1 2001, the 5 years passed is on Jan 1, 2006? Then, @A A he understood it as the time before the 5 years has fully passed so It may be Dec 31, 2005 at 11:59:59 PM? That's how I understood it.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

e.g. Jan 1 2001= 3.50

March 1 2001= 5.50...

Nov 1, 2015 = 148.50

Jan 1 2016 = 153.50

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

The problem asks about the interval of time of exactly 5 years which doesn't include anything after so to say the 5 year span of time , even if it implies an after period.

Look at it this way. The period considered here of 5 years does include just the amount of time of 5 years therefore jsut the elements belonging to the 5 years.

They therefore do not include anything outside that span of time , not even the smallest unit after it and though when it ends means exactly after the last moment of the last year which is included in the 5th year that after moment is not included and by this the rise doesn't happen for a 30th time.

For example take the "end of 1 day" , it is on one hand the last moment of the 1 day and has to be included in the last day but implies the moment after it too therefore the moment of time which is not included so the infinitisemal end should both be included and not be included in the set of 1 day which is a contradiction.

For the problem this paradox isn't important.

In 5 years means exactly just the moments included in the span of 5 years and therefore doesn't imply anything after it to be conceived , as such the proper answer is just the one of the last moment of the 5th year in which you don't get a rise because the moment after it , when you get a rise , is not included anyway.

At best , the problem can be stated with the condition of breaks between the days of jobs of some hours because this avoids completely the paradox.

Do that manually on a calendar and you find that in the last day of the last year of work you don't receive an increase

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Yet , I think it's more than that taken in a rigurous look at it , I think it's a paradox involved for which we don't agree with one another.

I mean we see part of the same thing. I see one side , Ashish , Prince , Hung Woei see the different part of it and I'm still not sure who is right on it either.

To illustrate the paradox , I think we are confused by the what "end of 5 years" means , of when that end actually happens or when the end of something is. Anyway , I don't think that we have a problem of when the rise happens and everyone agrees it happens in 2 months time , but it's a problem when the end is though.

Let's take it systematically to see the problem and understand better what the end means if you want.

I propose to look at the 5 years as made from a number of continuous moment of time which are included in the set of 5 years , to formalize and make it concrete.

Of course the end of the 5 years should be once the last moment of the set of moments of time of the 5 years ends. Everyone agrees with this statement or are there objections ?

My proof for the statement above is : the 5 year is made of a number of elements which belong to the 5 years and at the end of the 5 years , which means in the last moment of the 5th (or last) year , all those portions of time which compose the number of 5 years should be passed therefore for 5 years passed the last moment should also already be passed because otherwise it belongs to the set and there is a portion of time not passed which would contradict that all the moments have passed.

So the end of 5 years is when the last moment (of the last year) ends.

Nonetheless here is where comes the disagreement between us I think because some people see that when they try to conceive the end of this 5 years feel you have to include the next moment which doesn't belong to the 5 years , while some other (or maybe until now just I) think you don't have to include it anyway.

In other words for the 2 points of view , some people feel that when they try to conceive anyway such a thing as 5 years ended they observe that for the exactly last moment of the year to have ended you have to include another moment which doesn't belong to the set of 5 years because otherwise 5 years didn't have ended or formally that the last moment of the 5 years implies automatically when it ends the next moment of the next year while the other doesn't agree with that.

Suppose the last moment of the last year is m and the immediately next moment after the last moment of the 5th year is m1.

There seem to be 2 paradoxical things to consider when you try to riourously think of this infinitely so to say small instances of time.

I suppose everyone agrees also that when I speak of m and m1 they are at an instance from one another , they are immediately one after another with no other smaller distance between them which would lead to some infinitesimal paradoxes similar with the Zeno's arrow paradox and would be impossible since for any value , no matter how small I find , for the distance between the 2 instance of time anyway there is some other value even smaller and so on in an infinite manner so to say.

There would also be no m or m1 because there is always some smaller time unit but suppose that there is such a unit of time anyway.

Then , when you think end of m , you should also think start of m1 that is m = m1 actually. So anyway so to say the end of the last year is the beginning of the next , which means that that infinitesimal end of the year and that infinitesimal start of the next year are the same and therefore that the element of the next year belongs to the set of the last year which nonetheless is anyway contradictory because would mean that one element which doesn't belong to the set of 5 years belongs and in this way conceived to talk rigorously about some end of the last year is impossible.

Nonetheless when I think "period of 5 years" if m wouldn't be equal with m1 then nonetheless it is possible to conceive just that period excluding the moment after. To conceive this imagine that the Universe would not exist in exactly 5 years. After that moment there would be something which our mind can't conceive and therefore can't be talked about that and if the last moment of the 5th year would imply the next moment of the next year then there are not 5 years passed. But a complete period of 5 years must have passed at some point and this can be done by conceiving that interval of time without the first moment of the next year taken into consideration and thinking just at the elements which belong to the 5 years.

Another way to illustrate that would be by considering a paper which is colored half green and half yellow and the infinitesimal moment when the green passes to yellow. It can be conceived anyway that when the green ends is not yellow excluding the yellow once and for all in that infinitesimal moment of the green coloring I think.

Edit: in short , thisproblem considered like this would enter in some paradoxical things which are hardly solved and made the formal considerations of calculus , Cantor , Zenon , some greeks a little crazy anyway.

The paradoxes can be avoided for changing the formulation of the problem a little.

Log in to reply

@Ashish Siva @Prince Loomba @Hung Woei Neoh ?

What are your thoughts?Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

How about changing the question into At the end of 24 hours, what would be her hourly wage? Is the answer still the same?

Log in to reply

Wordings are wrong. Its ambiguous, at the end of 5 years. Clarify what this means!

Log in to reply

Suppose you receive the expression "end of 2 days" from the moment it is told , what does it mean ?

Well , it means when the 2 days from when you are told ends , so the wording is not ambigous and you just have to count when 2 days end anyway.

If you don't believe me , observe thinks like this to understand the increased amount of time span considered , that is to count it in the proper manner anyway so to say. Suppose you have a hourglass which measures 2 days , when the hourglass ends 2 days had passed.

Time span is just like that , with every second passed the amount of time increases just like a grain of sand in an hourglass passes , that is in a cumulative manner. Then considering this time span conceived articulately like the cumulation of every second just like the cumulation of every grain of sand you get the idea of 5 years end.

As another example. Suppose you are going to run 5 km anyway.

Asking when the 5 km end is an analogy of asking when 5 years pass because it's invovled the same cumulative perception of things , the same sum of smaller parts. The wording is therefore no vague when you ask , when 5 km passed at all therefore the wording is not vague also for asking when 5 years pass , if (and only if maybe) you perceive the passing of time in the right way when you think at it , that ios as a sum of parts (cumulation) thing , right ?

To move to the problem , one way to prove the problem is to take a calendar and suppose there are break between the days of work.

In this way certainly you see when you get your last increase that being that in the last day of the 60th month you have the 29 increase.

Another wayis by induction , the answer certainly is 148.50 if you try to thing of it attentively and I'm almost completely convinced of it right now anyway.

Log in to reply

I think end of 2 days means after 2 days i.e. 2 days ended

Log in to reply

Suppose your pulse rises with m heartbeats every 2 km of non-stoped , continuous running. Suppose you traveled 2km , does your pulse rise ? Because you end 2km it should rise but when does it rise ? In , may be said , the last moment of the 2th km of course or after the 2nd km ended. Now , does that point of rise of heartbeat includes the last point of the 2nd km or doesn't ? Seen in the cumulative way described upwards , as increase of smallest units in my opinion it doesn't. Your heartbeat rises just after the 2nd km ended , once it is passed. That means the 2km must be already passed for heartbeat to rise , therefore the last point of the km is not included in the first moment when your beat rises because that moment is not included by definition in the phrase so the answer seems no after all anyway.

Edit : this is rather paradoxical at this point , really dilematic I mean not just a misunderstanding.

The paradox consists in the fact that if you say that it happens in 2 km you should include the end of the 2nd km but if you do then 2km haven't already passed and therefore ended so it's quite impossible. Hmmmm maybe Cantor would have tell something anyway.

Or the mathematicians who formalised infinitesimal and made rigorous calculus anyway.

In other words the pulse (or the salary) can't rise in 2 km/months because if it rises the infinitisimal small end of the km month should be included in the moment of the rise so the problem is not consistent in this form anyway.

The only way of making it consistent is by eliminating the continuous set and transforming it in a set with breaks between the members of the set , that is conceiving there are some gaps between them anyway.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

In what way is it ambiguous?

Log in to reply

End of 5 years may mean just before or after completion. So answer can be 148.5 or 153.5

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Well , I still believe the answer is 148.50 but here is my reasoning.

Firstly let's make clear what the teacher is talking about. The teacher can either ask about the salary in the 5 years span of time or about it after 5 years have passed. I interpreted the question as meaning what is the hour wage becoming in a 5 year span. The difference anyway between them is that after 5 years includes the first moment of time in which already 5 years are passed and I will argue about the fact that no matter how you count the 2 months you will always have that the first 2 months should have 0 increase so to say.

The question therefore can be interpreted as follows. You start working on the job at some time , t0 which is included in the span of 5 years and the question is how much starting from t0 you will have your salary increased in this passing of 5 years , that is how many times do the salary increases over the period of 5 years from the initial moment you started working.

Considering this anyway the period of 5 years , or 60 months , posses some problems apparently on when that period of time passes but registering that amount of 60 months based on the increase in salary every 2 months concretely you have the following way of representing the increase by showing precisely what increase correspond to what month : months 0 - 2 (when 2 months pass or until the 3th month out of 60) 3.5 2 - 4th 3.5+5 and so on. By this reasoning 58 - 60 will be read as until the 61th month of 60 which means by following and counting it that the increase in the representation is 3.5+5*29 in it.

The same representation can be read as 0 - 2 meaning when 2 months pass including the first day of the 3th month by which therefore 58 - 60 means that the last 2 months of the time you work for 5 years should include the 1st day of the 61 month but I find it not to be correct since that is a moment of time which happens once the 5 years passed.

In other words you receive in the period of 5 years until the 5 years are close just 29 increases not 30 according to this reasoning.

In Ashish Siva's terms the arithmetic progression starts with 3.5 since the first 2 months anyway are included in the span and do not have an increase by this reasoning.

Log in to reply

The answer I think is ₱153.50 because she starts of with ₱3.5 which is going to become ₱8.5 in the next year i.e. at the end of the first pair of two months.

Now we know that 5 years = 60 months = 30 two months.

So, the hourly wages follow an arithmetic progression starts with 8.5 i.e. \(8.5, 13.5, 18.5, \cdots\).

We have to find the \({30}^{\text{th}}\) term of this progression which is \(8.5 + (30-1)×5 = \color{blue}{\boxed{₱153.50}}\).

Log in to reply

The thing is, some people say "at the end of 5 years" meant somewhere before 5 years are fully complete.

For example, say Angela began work on Jan 1 2011

I'd say that "at the end of 5 years" meant after 5 years has fully past (meaning 1 Jan 2016)

Some people argue that "at the end of 5 years" meant the last few moments of 2015

Log in to reply

Yeah that some margin of 0.000000000000....001 sec makes a difference in their salaries! How sad :( I would defined a specific range of time when my salary raises if I was working :P

Log in to reply

Our teacher's answer is ₱148.50 and I don't know why it is not ₱153.50 though @A A and @Hung Woei Neoh helped me a lot, I am still a bit confused and with their suggestion, made this note :)

Log in to reply

I personally feel that "at the end of 5 years" means the moment 5 years has fully passed. Therefore, I'd say that the answer is 153.50.

@Ashish Siva @Rishabh Tiwari @Rishabh Cool what do you guys think?

Log in to reply

Do you still believe the answer is ₱153.50?

Log in to reply

Yes. I feel that "at the end of 5 years" means right after 5 years has fully ended, which means the answer is 153.50

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply