[SoothingDave]

Your citation is elementary. It doesn't address more complicated expressions, where the rules of order come into play.

Also, note that the original expression did not use a "/", but a "÷"

[CAluvdubya]

psst..how did you make the division sign/ I can’t figure out how on my keyboard...Thanks

[meyer]

Actually, the problem itself is elementary, but the interpretation of the equation has presented a significant cause for argument. I was originally adament about what I saw as a simple math problem, even applying the distributive property to what appeared to be the complete denominator. It wasn't until I was convinced that everything to the right of the division sign was NOT necessarily the denominator that I saw that 288 could be considered the obvious answer, just as I had seen 2 to be.

In the future, I will "parenthesize" in a manner that makes it obvious as to which order is to be followed.

[CharacterCounts]

Okay, I was reading the / as a fraction. However, I decided to re-evaluate the expression in a different manner. I changed the division by 2 to multiplication by .5

thus the expression would read:

48 * .5 * (9+3) = 288.

I stand corrected but think the expression is poorly written.

[ThomasThomas]

Also, note that the original expression did not use a "/", but a "÷"

The picture of the calculators is different than the typed text in the post. The original expression on the calculators did use a "/" and the note used a "÷"