I agree/ I corrected my position at 368. the correct answer is 288, but the expression is poorly written
Sorry - hadn’t gotten there yet. We agree and we agree - on the answer and the ambiguous composition.
You had it right the first time.
This is from purplemath.com. For all you 288ers, read it and weep:
This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 3(4 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 3(4 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
The confusing part in the above calculation is how “16 divided by 2[2] + 1” (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes “16 divided by 4 + 1”, instead of “8 times by 2 + 1”. That’s because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the “16 divided by”. That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is “stronger” than “regular” multiplication