in 2002, walmarts revenues were 600% more than kmarts...if walmarts revenues were 48 billion, does that mean k-marts revenues were -288 billion? please help!
2007-01-21 17:15:39 · 20 answers · asked by Valkrygrrl 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
Actually it just means that kmarts revenue was 8 billion because 600% is really just a fancy way of saying 6 times as much.
2007-01-21 17:18:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You seem to have received a hodgepodge of answers here, so let me see if I can help you untangle this apparent web of confusion. The key word in this problem is more. That implies addition, not multiplication.
Let's say K-Mart made x dollars in revenue. Then if Wal-Mart made 600% more, they made as much, plus 6 times again as much as K-Mart. So, mathematically, we could express Wal-Mart's revenue as x + 6x = 7x times K-Mart's revenue. Since we know Wal-Mart's revenue was $48 billion, we can set that equal to the above equation to find x.
7x = $48 billion ---> x = $48/7 billion, which is approximately equal to $6.857 billion.
There's yet another way of looking at this problem. We can say that the difference between their revenues was 600% of K-Mart's revenue. Mathematically, that implies this equation:
[(48 - x) / x] * 100 = 600
Manipulating this equation further, we get:
[(48 / x ) - 1 ] * 100 = 600
(4800 / x) - 100 = 600
4800 / x = 700
4800 / 700 = x
48 / 7 = x
6.857 = x
So no matter which way you slice it, K-Mart's revenues must have been about $6.857 billion.
2007-01-21 18:31:57 · answer #2 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
It means K-mart revenue was around 6.86 billion.
Wallmart had 600% more than revenue than k-mart.
So Walmarts TOTAL revenue was 700% of K-mart, to account for the original 100% of k-mart revenue that walmart already had.
Simply divide the 48 billion by 7 for your answer
NB: TO THOSE SAYING WALMART = 6 x KMART giving 8 billion - THE ASKER SAID "600% MORE THAN", not "600% OF"
2007-01-21 17:20:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No! it means K-Marts revenues were 1/6 of the Wai-marts: 48/6 = 8 billions.
2007-01-21 17:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by smarties 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If walmart's revenues were 600% more than k-mart's, then walmart's revenues were 7 X k-mart's. Divide by 7.
48 billion divided by 7 is about 6.86 billion
2007-01-21 18:00:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Note that 600% more means 700% as much. If Wal-mart scored $48 billion, K-mart did a seventh of that, or just under $7 billion.
2007-01-21 17:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
600% more means that WalMarts revenue was 700% of KMart's.
1/7*$48e9 = $6.8e9
2007-01-21 17:22:28 · answer #7 · answered by J C 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
let kmarts revenue be x...and since walmarts revenue is 600% more than kmarts then it is 6x.....we know tht walmarts revenue was 48 billion...so
6x=48 i.e. x=48/6=8....
So kmarts revenue was 8 billion.....
2007-01-21 17:32:58 · answer #8 · answered by Vinay 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
600% really means "7 times more than the first figure". So, 1/7th of 48 billion is slightly under 7 billion for Kmart. (6.857 billion)
2007-01-21 17:23:13 · answer #9 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no, divide the 48 billion by 6, you get 8 billion, which would be 100% of K-marts revenue.
2007-01-21 17:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by jimstock60 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋