Arectangular box has a volume of $4320$ cubic inches and a surface area of $1704$ square inches. the sum of the lengths of its $12$ edges is $208$ inches. what would be the volume of the box, in cubic inches, if its length, width and height were each increased by one inch?

the volume would be V₂ = 5225 in³

Explanation:

denoting w as width , L as length and h as height , then the volume of the box will be

V = w*h*L

the surface area will be

S= 2*w*h + 2*w*L + 2*h*L→ S/2 = w*h +w*L + h*L

and the sum of the lengths TL will be

TL = 4*h + 4*L + 4*w  → TL/4 = w + h + L

if the dimensions would increase 1 unit , the volume would be

V₂ = (w+1)*(h+1)*(L+1) = w*h*L + w*h+ wL +w + hL + h + L +1 = w*h*L + (w*h+ wL+hL) + (w+h+L) + 1 = V + S/2 + TL/4 +1

V₂ = V + S/2 + TL/4 +1 = 4320 in³ + 1704 in²/2 *1 in + 208 in/4 * 1 in² +1* 1 in³  = 5225 in³

V₂ = 5225 in³

the volume would be V₂ = 5225 in³

Explanation:

I took the test

in 2001, dell computer became the world’s largest personal computer vendor, continuing to

gain market share and post profits in an industry struggling with slumping sales and billions of

dollars in losses. dell sells 90% of its pcs directly to the final customer, largely bypassing the

reseller channel that accounts for most of the world’s pc sales. this direct customer relationship

is the key to dell’s business model, and provides distinct advantages over the indirect sales

model. dell’s direct relationship with the customer allows it to tailor its offerings to customer

needs, offer add-on products and services, and use the internet to offer a variety of customer

services. in addition, dell’s pcs are built to customers’ specifications upon receipt of an order,

giving dell additional advantages over indirect pc vendors who must try to forecast demand and

ship products based on those forecasts. dell’s direct sales and build-to-order model has achieved

superior performance in the pc industry in terms of inventory turnover, reduced overhead, cash

conversion, and return on investment (kraemer, et al., 2000).

explanation: