The obstacle course was very challenging. three out of every 8 contestants fell in the mud at the beginning and gave up. then 1 out of 5 couldn't climb over the wall. then 2 out of 9 couldn't climb up the rope and dropped out. finally, 1 out of 10 couldn't jump over the hurdles and quit. what percent of the contestants made it to the finish line?

35%

Explanation:

Let us assume that the number of contestants = N.

The fractions are given as --

"3 out of 8"

"1 out of 5"

"2 out of 9"

"1 out of 10"

Hence the no. of contestants in the competitions is in the multiples of 8, 5, 9 and 10.

Therefore the least common multiple of the numbers 8, 5, 9 and 10 is 360.

Therefore the number of contestants should be a multiple of 360.

Now, let N = 360 p

Firstly, 3 out of 8 students fell and gave up and so remaining 5 out of 8 passed. That is (5/8) x 360 p = 225 p passed.

Secondly, 1 out of 5 could not climb. Therefore, remaining 4 out of 5 climbed and passed. That is (4/5) x 225 p = 180 p passed.

Thirdly, 2 out of 9 dropped out. Thus remaining 7 out of 9 passed. That is (7/9) x 180 p = 140 p passed.

Fourthly, 1 out of 10 could not jumped and quit. Thus remaining 9 out of 10 passed. Therefore, (9/10) x 140 p = 126 p passed.

Therefore now fraction who finished is = 126 p / 360 p

                                                                 = 126 / 360

                                                                 = 21 / 60

                                                                 = 7/20

Thus the fraction that finished is 7 / 20

Therefore percentage that finished is (7/20) x 100 = 35%

Thus 35% of the contestant made to the finish line.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )