[SeaHawkFan]

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

[CharacterCounts]

Well, I’m absolutely certain the correct answer is between 1 and 300.

[grateful]

48÷2(9+3)=288

48÷[2(9+3)]=2

[SoothingDave]

That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is “stronger” than “regular” multiplication

Finally, someone on the "2" has found something to cite in favor of their position. Good job.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a minority and/or obsoleted opinion.

So, bottom line is:

2'ers are either misunderstanding a division operator for a fraction, implying a grouping of all to the right of "/" which is not actually stated.

Or applying a minority view about "implied" multiplication taking precedent over regular multiplication and division.

The fact that TI changed from this "implied" rule to standard parsing and that all other computer implementations adhere to standard order of operation rules makes 288 the proper answer today.