This actually isn’t too hard to solve. Double the value of each option by removing the folding requirement from the 2-ply and halving the price of the 3-ply to get an even comparison of 2-ply (330 sheets for $0.70) and 3-ply (300 sheets for $0.60), then recognize that it’s not worth adding 1/6 the price for 1/10th the sheets, to see that the 3-ply option is better.
The ply count doesn’t reflect thickness or softness at all. Of the 3-ply toilet papers I’ve used at home, some need three layers to not fall apart on the first wipe, others are fine with a single sheet.
300 sheets for 1.2 is a nice division by .6: 500 sheets for $2. So now all we gotta do is multiply by .7 to get 350 sheets for 1.40.
Considering the fold, we are at 330 effective sheets for 1.40. 350 > 330, get the 3 ply (lol).
This is a little bit funky obviously and just works because of seeing a divisor. If not for that I would have tried once each way to get cost per full effective sheet or cost per half effective sheet to see which one has nicer numbers.
This actually isn’t too hard to solve. Double the value of each option by removing the folding requirement from the 2-ply and halving the price of the 3-ply to get an even comparison of 2-ply (330 sheets for $0.70) and 3-ply (300 sheets for $0.60), then recognize that it’s not worth adding 1/6 the price for 1/10th the sheets, to see that the 3-ply option is better.
That’s needlessly complicated.
If you’re folding the 2-ply, you only get 165 wipes. So divide 70 by 165 to get 0.42 cents a wipe
Now the 3-ply is 300 wipes, so divide 120 by 300 to get 40 cents a wipe
The cheap stuff is more expensive.
But we need to take into account that the folded 2 ply becomes an effective 4 ply, so you’re getting more ply per penny
By the first sentence, you’ve already done more problem solving than an LLM-brained person.
Not folding 3-ply is asking for added expenses in the form of water and soap though… Push right through em
The ply count doesn’t reflect thickness or softness at all. Of the 3-ply toilet papers I’ve used at home, some need three layers to not fall apart on the first wipe, others are fine with a single sheet.
It hurts my brain to do it that way.
300 sheets for 1.2 is a nice division by .6: 500 sheets for $2. So now all we gotta do is multiply by .7 to get 350 sheets for 1.40.
Considering the fold, we are at 330 effective sheets for 1.40. 350 > 330, get the 3 ply (lol).
This is a little bit funky obviously and just works because of seeing a divisor. If not for that I would have tried once each way to get cost per full effective sheet or cost per half effective sheet to see which one has nicer numbers.
… Or just open the calculator app.
I’ve had the calculator open for 15 minutes but nothing is happening, is it broken? Help?
Funny how brains can work so differently lol
Feel like bidet’s must be accounted for if we gonna start the math justifications