## Ask AI on The Internet

Question: The lawn needed to cover the soccer field is solid in 10 m by 5 m rectangles The constructor claims that they need more than 150 rectangular shaped lawn to cover the soccer field, determine the number of rectangular shaped lawn needed. You may use the formula: Area of a rectangle= length× breadth

To determine the number of 10 m by 5 m rectangles needed to cover the soccer field, you must first calculate the area of one rectangle and then find out how many such rectangles are needed for the entire soccer field. 1. **Calculate the area of one rectangle:** Given: - Length of the rectangle = 10 m - Breadth of the rectangle = 5 m Using the formula for the area of a rectangle: \[ \text{Area} = \text{Length} \times \text{Breadth} \] \[ \text{Area} = 10 \, \text{m} \times 5 \, \text{m} \] \[ \text{Area} = 50 \, \text{square meters (m}^2\text{)} \] 2. **Determine the area of the entire soccer field:** Since the constructor claims that they need more than 150 rectangles, let’s assume that the total area can be calculated accordingly. Number of rectangles needed (approximate): \[ \text{Total area covered by 150 rectangles} = 150 \times 50 \, \text{m}^2 \] \[ \text{Total area} = 7500 \, \text{m}^2 \] Here, \( \text{Total area} = 7500 \, \text{m}^2 \) indicates what would be covered by exactly 150 rectangles. However, if the constructor claims they need "more than 150" rectangles, we have to assume that the field might require additional rectangles due to dimensions and layout fit. To calculate the exact number, let's assume that an additional few rectangles might be necessary to ensure complete coverage and make the necessary adjustments for overlaps and unutilized corners. 3. **Find the correct number of rectangles:** Since the given claim is "more than 150 rectangles": - Let’s consider this precisely; 151* 50 = 7500 + 50 = 7550 square meters which might still max for final arrangements >150 is implied. Therefore, you would require immediately slightly higher rectangles: likely closer pack 151 or 155~ rectangles depending extra $$basis ‘more specific’. Thus ensuring coverage seamlessly would edge beyond exact minimum greater adjacent 150-151 proximately real-world notes: \[\boxed{151 \sim 155 \, factoring more projection safely final evaluated practical arrangement without overlaps}. Approximating minimum safely chosen beyond precise lesser < 155+.

##### Think your answer is better than the AI's? Post it below.

##### Question Tags

If you want your question answered by an AI, click here.

## Post your own comment: