In our lifetime this has always been taught correctly the same way. Anybody that taught you in a way that resulted in you getting the wrong answer to this problem was just flat out wrong themselves.

Long story short the answer is 1 but 9 is acceptable as well.

How they get 9:
6 / 2(2+1)
6 / 2 * 3
At this step they remove the parentheses and do implied multiplication and evaluate left to right. they are dividing 6 by 2 first and getting 3 so now it's
3(3) which is equal to 9.
In higher level mathematics multiplication by adjacency to parentheses tends to take precedence over multiplication from left to right and a division sign isnt used so it would instead be treat we as a fraction like this and become this:
6 /2(2+1) can be simplified to
6 / 2(3)
Thus the fraction 6 / 6
Which would give you 1.
It can be fixed to make the problem less ambiguous by writing it in fractional notation using the method @Arithmetic posted in his solution.
Long story short the answer is 1 but 9 is acceptable as well.

The answer is 1. This is a poorly written equation tho.The answer is 9![]()
Do it yourself or google it.. let me know what it says.The answer is 1. This is a poorly written equation tho.



This guy trying to give a shyt lesson on PEMDAS, when the rules are well known. PEMDAS isn't the basis of my answer.
If the problem is purposefully ambiguous, it isn't a math problem, it is an interpretation problem, which means it has no clear answer.
In math, things are written a certain way to avoid ambiguity. All about clarity and rigor.
You have to deal with the parenthesis first.
(1+2) = 3
2(3) = 6
This thread definitely didn't disappoint!This is going to be an entertaining thread!
![]()

I did it myself lmaoo and as I said it’s badly written hence why if you put it in google you get 9 because the divide sign when typing into a computer is the same as a fraction signDo it yourself or google it.. let me know what it says.
He isn’t multiplying out of order tho. He did it correctly in orderNot sure why you got all offended, but I agreed with your statement that it was purposefully ambiguous.
I cited PEMDAS because you said “you need to deal with the parentheses first” then proceeded to do it incorrectly:
The second line isn’t “dealing with the parentheses” it is incorrectly multiplying out of order.