*I think* doesn’t have an answer. Am I wrong?

Here’s the problem:

Which of the following shapes **cannot** be obtained by cutting a parallelogram into two **congruent** pieces and **rearranging into one**?

A. Square *(eliminated:base=height)*

B. Rectangle *(eliminated)*

C. Rhombus *(Xtra tricky but still eliminated:side AB=4$\times$side BC)*

D. Parallelogram *(eliminated)*

No vote yet

1 vote

Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in`\(`

...`\)`

or`\[`

...`\]`

to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestYour solution definitely seems viable, maybe they meant that one shape can't be formed from any arbitrary parallelogram? In your examples you relied on certain proportions in the shape, so it might be the case that a construction doesn't exist for all parallelograms to turn into one of those shapes.

I think you can still eliminate rectangle and parallelogram though, because there can only be one answer and if either B or D were impossible, A or C would have to be as well.

Log in to reply

Thanks for your reply😊

Log in to reply