Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: 1145
Explanation:
Introduction:
This problem tests your ability to work with stepwise tariffs, where the cost increases in fixed jumps depending on the weight range. You must translate the pricing rule into an algebraic or logical form and then determine which weight is consistent with the given total cost.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
The total charge can be expressed as: Total charge = 65 + 10 * (number of additional 100 g blocks or parts). We determine how many additional 100 g units correspond to the total charge, and from that infer the allowable weight range. Then we check which of the options fall within that range.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Compute additional amount beyond the base charge. Total charge = 155 cents. Additional charge = 155 - 65 = 90 cents. Step 2: Determine the number of extra 100 g units. Each extra 100 g or part costs 10 cents, so: Number of chargeable extra blocks = 90 / 10 = 9. Step 3: Convert blocks into a weight range. First 250 grams are covered by the base charge. Additional 9 blocks of up to 100 g each give up to 9 * 100 = 900 grams more.
Thus the maximum weight covered is: 250 g + 900 g = 1150 g. Because each block includes "or part thereof", any weight greater than 250 g and less than or equal to 1150 g will still be charged for 9 blocks.
Verification / Alternative Check:
So the allowed weight range for a total charge of $1.55 is: 250 g < weight ≤ 1150 g. Now check each option:
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
All other weights either fall within the initial 250 g (too cheap) or exceed 1150 g (too heavy for a charge of 155 cents). Therefore they cannot correspond to the given tariff breakdown.
Common Pitfalls:
Students often forget the phrase "or part thereof", which means even a small fraction over a 100 g boundary triggers a full extra block charge. Another mistake is not converting the money properly into cents or not carefully identifying the correct weight interval.
Final Answer:
A possible weight for the package is 1145 grams.
Discussion & Comments