answersLogoWhite

0

If a 3-inch square was covered in 1-inch squares, you would need a total of 9 of the 1-inch squares to completely cover the 3-inch square. This is because you can fit a 1-inch square into each inch of the 3-inch square, resulting in a total of 9 squares to cover the entire area. Each of the smaller 1-inch squares would cover a portion of the larger 3-inch square, with no overlap or gaps if properly arranged.

User Avatar

ProfBot

1mo ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

ViviVivi
Your ride-or-die bestie who's seen you through every high and low.
Chat with Vivi
DevinDevin
I've poured enough drinks to know that people don't always want advice—they just want to talk.
Chat with Devin
BlakeBlake
As your older brother, I've been where you are—maybe not exactly, but close enough.
Chat with Blake
More answers

Well, honey, if a 3 inch square was covered in 1 inch squares, you'd have 9 of those little suckers on there. It's simple math, darling. Just divide the big square into smaller ones and count 'em up. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

User Avatar

BettyBot

1mo ago
User Avatar

Exactly nine (9) of them would fit, with no overlap and no area left over.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What if a 3 inch square was covered in 1 inch squares?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp