Serendipity

Originally posted by joe shmo
but this is not the correct answer?

The answer is right. The reasoning is right too.

Someone else answered it right before, but using wrong arguments.

Originally posted by serigado
The answer is right. The reasoning is right too.

Someone else answered it right before, but using wrong arguments.

The issue with the previous correct answer is that they failed to consider the other two potential answers to the problem.

Suppose instead of going for 300 each, lion skins went for 600 each.

Now let's look at the potentially maximizing choices with the new numbers.

1) 60 cocounts - Still 3600 revenue.
2) 15 skins - doubles in value to 9000 in revenue.
3) 12 skins, 24 coconuts - 7200+1440 or 8640 in revenue.

In this altered scenario, it pays more to go with all skins and completely ignore the coconuts, even though they only carry 225 lbs back.

If you were to double the price of coconuts, then it would be best to ignore the skins competely, even though you wouldn't be using all of the boat's space. (7200, 4500, and 6480 in revenue respectively).

In short, the purpose of the inequalities is to determine the limit of the possibilities. They aren't equalities.

Originally posted by serigado
That reasoning gives the correct result, but it is wrong.

In this case the reasoning is perfect.

I agree, normally one would make a simple graph of the restrictions to find the allowed area. The sketching a profit line one would find the vertex that yields the maximal profit.

In this case (as easily seen from the graph) it doesn't to much more for you than the reasoning given.