who's a maths wiz? Help me out!

1. who's a maths wiz? Help me out!

I'm puzzling over this problem, can any clever clogs on here work it out? And explain how?

In a group of horses and riders, the number of legs was 84 more than twice the number of heads. How many horses were there?

(I think you have to assume there's one rider per horse)

2. Join Date
Dec 2013
Posts
65
Thanks
25
Thanked
26
Reviews
0
i get 14 horses...
if each horse has 4 legs and each rider has 2 legs then there are 6 legs per horse/rider unit.
so divide 84 (total numbr of legs) by 6 (total number for legs per horse/rider) = 14 horses and 14 riders.
so 28 heads and 84 legs...
does that work?

3. The Following User Says Thank You to phoebebebe For This Useful Post:

Ngaiz  (20-08-2014)

4. Ah what!? I googled the answer and still don't get it.

5. Join Date
Oct 2013
Posts
125
Thanks
141
Thanked
142
Reviews
0
Originally Posted by phoebebebe
i get 14 horses...
if each horse has 4 legs and each rider has 2 legs then there are 6 legs per horse/rider unit.
so divide 84 (total numbr of legs) by 6 (total number for legs per horse/rider) = 14 horses and 14 riders.
so 28 heads and 84 legs...
does that work?
No because the number of legs needs to be 84 MORE than twice the number of heads.

6. Join Date
Dec 2013
Posts
65
Thanks
25
Thanked
26
Reviews
0
i could be making sh*t up, that makes sense in my pregnant head.....but it could be complete rubbish...

7. Assuming one rider per horse, the number of horses is 42.

X = horses
2X = heads (one per horse and one per rider)
6X = legs (four per horse plus two per rider)

The equation given is Legs = 84 + 2 x Heads

Therefore:

6X = 84 + 2 x (2X)
6X = 84 + 4X
6X - 4X = 84 (+4X - 4X)
2X = 84
X = 42

8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GM01 For This Useful Post:

9. No, I don't think that works @phoebebebe, because 84 isn't the number of legs.
This is the equation I *think* but I'm stuffed if I can remember how to solve it

legs = (heads x 2) + 84

10. Join Date
Dec 2013
Posts
65
Thanks
25
Thanked
26
Reviews
0
No because the number of legs needs to be 84 MORE than twice the number of heads.

oh i totally invented a comma in there, "84, more than the number of legs"
in which case, i got nothin!

11. Is it 21

21 horse plus 21 riders is 126 legs.
Minus 42 heads is 84 legs .

I am hopeless at this

12. Originally Posted by phoebebebe
oh i totally invented a comma in there, "84, more than the number of legs"
in which case, i got nothin!
That's how I read it too haha

13. The Following User Says Thank You to Ngaiz For This Useful Post:

Gothel  (20-08-2014)

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Life FertilityLife Fertility Clinic is a boutique fertility clinic located in Spring Hill, Brisbane. Our dedicated fertility and IVF ...
REVIEWS