Statics and Dynamics Quiz: Using Symmetry
9 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Using SymmetryQuestion 1 of 9

A solid of revolution is generated by rotating the region bounded by y=x2y = x^2 and y=4y = 4 (with x0x \geq 0) about the y-axis through a full 360360^\circ. The resulting solid has uniform density.

A student argues: 'Because the generating region is bounded on the right by x0x \geq 0 only, and the rotation is about the y-axis, the resulting 3-D solid is axially symmetric about the y-axis. Therefore, by symmetry, both xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 and zˉ=0\bar{z} = 0, and only yˉ\bar{y} requires integration.' Is this reasoning valid, and what is yˉ\bar{y}?

The reasoning is valid. The solid has full rotational symmetry about the y-axis, guaranteeing xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0. Computing yˉ\bar{y} by the disk/shell method gives yˉ=83\bar{y} = \dfrac{8}{3}, placing the centroid closer to the top face (y=4y=4) than to the vertex (y=0y=0) due to the increasing cross-sectional area with height.
The reasoning is valid. The solid has full rotational symmetry about the y-axis, guaranteeing xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0. Computing yˉ\bar{y} gives yˉ=2\bar{y} = 2, which is the midpoint of the y-extent [0,4][0,4], consistent with the parabolic solid's fore-aft symmetry.
The reasoning is partially valid: axial symmetry about the y-axis does guarantee xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0, but it also forces yˉ\bar{y} to equal the midpoint of the y-extent by the same symmetry argument, giving yˉ=2\bar{y} = 2 without any integration needed.
The reasoning is invalid: rotating only the x0x \geq 0 half-region about the y-axis does not produce a body with true rotational symmetry, because the generating curve y=x2y = x^2 is asymmetric. Therefore xˉ\bar{x} and zˉ\bar{z} cannot be determined by symmetry and all three coordinates require integration.
← Back to quizzes

Statics and Dynamics Quiz

Statics and Dynamics Quiz: Using Symmetry

Practice Using Symmetry in Statics and Dynamics with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Using Symmetry, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Statics and Dynamics.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A solid of revolution is generated by rotating the region bounded by y=x2y = x^2 and y=4y = 4 (with x0x \geq 0) about the y-axis through a full 360360^\circ. The resulting solid has uniform density.

A student argues: 'Because the generating region is bounded on the right by x0x \geq 0 only, and the rotation is about the y-axis, the resulting 3-D solid is axially symmetric about the y-axis. Therefore, by symmetry, both xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 and zˉ=0\bar{z} = 0, and only yˉ\bar{y} requires integration.' Is this reasoning valid, and what is yˉ\bar{y}?

  1. The reasoning is valid. The solid has full rotational symmetry about the y-axis, guaranteeing xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0. Computing yˉ\bar{y} by the disk/shell method gives yˉ=83\bar{y} = \dfrac{8}{3}, placing the centroid closer to the top face (y=4y=4) than to the vertex (y=0y=0) due to the increasing cross-sectional area with height. (correct answer)
  2. The reasoning is valid. The solid has full rotational symmetry about the y-axis, guaranteeing xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0. Computing yˉ\bar{y} gives yˉ=2\bar{y} = 2, which is the midpoint of the y-extent [0,4][0,4], consistent with the parabolic solid's fore-aft symmetry.
  3. The reasoning is partially valid: axial symmetry about the y-axis does guarantee xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0, but it also forces yˉ\bar{y} to equal the midpoint of the y-extent by the same symmetry argument, giving yˉ=2\bar{y} = 2 without any integration needed.
  4. The reasoning is invalid: rotating only the x0x \geq 0 half-region about the y-axis does not produce a body with true rotational symmetry, because the generating curve y=x2y = x^2 is asymmetric. Therefore xˉ\bar{x} and zˉ\bar{z} cannot be determined by symmetry and all three coordinates require integration.
Explanation: When a solid is formed by rotating a 2D region a full 360° about an axis, the result has complete rotational symmetry about that axis. This means every point in the solid has a mirror image across any plane containing the y-axis, which forces the centroid to lie exactly on that axis — so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 and zˉ=0\bar{z} = 0 by symmetry alone. The student's reasoning here is sound. For yˉ\bar{y}, you must integrate because there is no up-down symmetry — the cross-sectional area grows with height (wider disks near y=4y = 4, narrower near y=0y = 0), pulling the centroid upward. Using the disk method, each horizontal slice at height yy has radius x=yx = \sqrt{y}, so: V=04πydy=π[y22]04=8πV = \int_0^4 \pi y \, dy = \pi \left[\frac{y^2}{2}\right]_0^4 = 8\pi yˉ=1V04πyydy=18ππ[y33]04=64/38=83\bar{y} = \frac{1}{V}\int_0^4 \pi y \cdot y \, dy = \frac{1}{8\pi} \cdot \pi \left[\frac{y^3}{3}\right]_0^4 = \frac{64/3}{8} = \frac{8}{3} Since 832.67>2\tfrac{8}{3} \approx 2.67 > 2, the centroid sits above the midpoint — exactly what the expanding cross-section predicts. This confirms A is correct. B is wrong because yˉ=2\bar{y} = 2 assumes uniform cross-sections, ignoring that the disk area increases with yy. C compounds that error by claiming axial symmetry forces yˉ\bar{y} to the midpoint — axial symmetry says nothing about the vertical location. D is wrong because rotating even a one-sided region a full 360° absolutely produces rotational symmetry; the generating curve's shape doesn't break that. Study tip: Distinguish the two symmetry questions separately — rotational symmetry about the axis kills xˉ\bar{x} and zˉ\bar{z}, but yˉ\bar{y} always requires checking whether mass is evenly distributed vertically.

Question 2

An engineer must locate the centroid of a thin uniform plate shaped like the letter 'T'. The plate is formed by two rectangles: a horizontal top bar of width 6b6b and height bb, centered horizontally, and a vertical stem of width bb and height 4b4b, also centered horizontally beneath the bar. The bottom of the stem sits at y=0y = 0; the top of the bar is at y=5by = 5b. A coordinate system is placed with its origin at the bottom-center of the stem.

The engineer invokes the vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0 to conclude xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0, and then computes yˉ\bar{y} using the composite-area method. Which of the following gives the correct yˉ\bar{y}?

  1. yˉ=(6b)(b)(4.5b)+(b)(4b)(2b)(6b)(b)+(b)(4b)=27b3+8b310b2=3.5b\bar{y} = \dfrac{(6b)(b)(4.5b) + (b)(4b)(2b)}{(6b)(b) + (b)(4b)} = \dfrac{27b^3 + 8b^3}{10b^2} = 3.5b, where the top bar (area 6b26b^2, centroid at y=4.5by = 4.5b) and stem (area 4b24b^2, centroid at y=2by = 2b) are treated as two non-overlapping rectangles. (correct answer)
  2. yˉ=(6b)(b)(4.5b)+(b)(4b)(2b)(6b)(b)+(b)(4b)=3.5b\bar{y} = \dfrac{(6b)(b)(4.5b) + (b)(4b)(2b)}{(6b)(b) + (b)(4b)} = 3.5b, but this result is invalid because the two rectangles overlap at a b×bb \times b square, so the overlapping area must be subtracted once and its centroid accounted for separately.
  3. yˉ=(6b2)(4.5b)+(4b2)(2b)6b2+4b2=3.5b\bar{y} = \dfrac{(6b^2)(4.5b) + (4b^2)(2b)}{6b^2 + 4b^2} = 3.5b, but since both sub-centroids lie on the vertical axis of symmetry, the correct yˉ\bar{y} must equal the simple average of the two centroid heights: yˉ=4.5b+2b2=3.25b\bar{y} = \dfrac{4.5b + 2b}{2} = 3.25b.
  4. yˉ=(6b)(b)(4.5b)+(b)(4b)(2b)(6b)(b)+(b)(4b)=27b3+8b310b2=3.5b\bar{y} = \dfrac{(6b)(b)(4.5b) + (b)(4b)(2b)}{(6b)(b) + (b)(4b)} = \dfrac{27b^3 + 8b^3}{10b^2} = 3.5b, but the correct centroid height is actually yˉ=2.5b\bar{y} = 2.5b because the overall shape has a vertical extent of 5b5b, and by the vertical symmetry of the T-shape the centroid must lie at the midpoint 5b/25b/2.
Explanation: When a composite shape can be divided into simple sub-regions with no overlap, the composite-area centroid formula is straightforward: multiply each sub-area by its centroid location, sum those products, then divide by the total area. The T-shape here divides cleanly into two non-overlapping rectangles — the horizontal bar occupying y=4by = 4b to y=5by = 5b, and the vertical stem occupying y=0y = 0 to y=4by = 4b — so long as you define the division correctly. Answer A does exactly this. The top bar has area 6b×b=6b26b \times b = 6b^2 with its centroid at y=4.5by = 4.5b (midpoint of the bar). The stem has area b×4b=4b2b \times 4b = 4b^2 with its centroid at y=2by = 2b (midpoint of the stem). Plugging into the formula: yˉ=(6b2)(4.5b)+(4b2)(2b)6b2+4b2=27b3+8b310b2=3.5b\bar{y} = \frac{(6b^2)(4.5b) + (4b^2)(2b)}{6b^2 + 4b^2} = \frac{27b^3 + 8b^3}{10b^2} = 3.5b. This is correct. Answer B raises a false concern. If you define the bar as only the portion above y=4by = 4b (the full 6b×b6b \times b strip) and the stem as the full b×4bb \times 4b column below, there is no geometric overlap — so no subtraction is needed. Overlap only arises if you define sub-regions carelessly. Answer C correctly computes 3.5b3.5b but then discards it in favor of a simple average of centroid heights, 3.25b3.25b. Simple averaging ignores the areas as weights — that's the entire point of the weighted formula. Answer D invokes a false "vertical symmetry implies midpoint" argument. Vertical symmetry only guarantees xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0; it says nothing about yˉ\bar{y}. Study tip: Always check whether your sub-regions actually overlap before applying corrections — and never confuse symmetry about a vertical axis (which fixes xˉ\bar{x}) with symmetry about a horizontal axis (which would fix yˉ\bar{y}).

Question 3

A thin uniform plate is bounded by the parabola x=y2x = y^2 and the line x=9x = 9. A student proposes to use symmetry to determine both centroid coordinates, reasoning as follows: 'The region is symmetric about the x-axis because for every point (x,y)(x, y) in the region, the point (x,y)(x, -y) is also in the region. Therefore yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0. Furthermore, the region has a similar fore-aft symmetry so xˉ=4.5\bar{x} = 4.5 by midpoint symmetry.'

Which part(s) of the student's symmetry argument are correct?

  1. Both parts are correct: the x-axis symmetry argument validly gives yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0, and the midpoint argument validly gives xˉ=4.5\bar{x} = 4.5, so neither coordinate requires direct integration.
  2. Only the first part is correct: the region is indeed symmetric about the x-axis, so yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0 by valid symmetry argument. The second part is incorrect because the region is not symmetric about any vertical line x=cx = c; the horizontal extent of the region is non-uniform in yy, so xˉ\bar{x} must be found by integration and will not equal 4.5.
  3. Only the first part is correct: yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0 follows validly from x-axis symmetry. The second part is wrong because 'fore-aft symmetry' would require the region to map onto itself under x9xx \to 9 - x, which it does not since the parabola becomes 9x=y29 - x = y^2, a different curve. The correct xˉ\bar{x}, found by integration, is xˉ=275\bar{x} = \dfrac{27}{5}. (correct answer)
  4. Both parts are incorrect: the region bounded by x=y2x = y^2 and x=9x = 9 is not symmetric about the x-axis because the parabola opens rightward and is therefore asymmetric. The correct centroid must be found by full double integration with no symmetry simplifications.
Explanation: Centroid problems test two distinct skills: recognizing valid symmetry arguments and performing integration correctly. When evaluating a symmetry claim, always ask: does the region map exactly onto itself under the proposed transformation? The first part of the student's argument is sound. The region bounded by x=y2x = y^2 and x=9x = 9 is symmetric about the x-axis because for every point (x,y)(x, y) in the region, (x,y)(x, -y) is also in the region — the parabola and the vertical line both satisfy this. Mass distributed symmetrically about the x-axis produces yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0 with no integration required. The second part fails. "Fore-aft symmetry" would require the region to map onto itself under the substitution x9xx \to 9 - x. But this transforms the boundary x=y2x = y^2 into 9x=y29 - x = y^2, or x=9y2x = 9 - y^2 — a leftward-opening parabola, which is a completely different curve. The region is narrow near x=0x = 0 and wide near x=9x = 9, so more area (and mass) lies toward the right, pulling xˉ\bar{x} past the midpoint 4.5. Integration gives xˉ=275=5.4\bar{x} = \dfrac{27}{5} = 5.4, confirming this. Answer C captures both points correctly. Answer A fails because it accepts the false midpoint argument. Answer B correctly rejects the midpoint claim but gives no value for xˉ\bar{x} and doesn't explain why the symmetry fails structurally. Answer D wrongly rejects the x-axis symmetry — a rightward-opening parabola is absolutely symmetric about the x-axis. Strategy tip: Always verify a symmetry claim by substituting the transformation into every boundary equation. If even one boundary changes form, the symmetry — and any centroid shortcut derived from it — is invalid.

Question 4

A planar wire (line object, not area) bent into the shape of a semicircle of radius RR, with the diameter along the x-axis and the arc in the upper half-plane. The wire has uniform linear density λ\lambda.

Which of the following statements correctly identifies what symmetry can and cannot determine about the centroid of this wire, and gives the correct centroid location?

  1. The wire has a vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by symmetry. The value yˉ\bar{y} cannot be found by symmetry and requires integration, yielding yˉ=2Rπ\bar{y} = \dfrac{2R}{\pi}, which is less than R/2R/2 — closer to the diameter than to the top of the arc.
  2. The wire has a vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by symmetry. Integration gives yˉ=R2\bar{y} = \dfrac{R}{2}, the midpoint of the y-extent [0,R][0, R], reflecting the uniform distribution of the wire along the arc.
  3. The wire has a vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by symmetry. Integration gives yˉ=2Rπ0.637R\bar{y} = \dfrac{2R}{\pi} \approx 0.637R, which is above the midpoint R/2R/2 because the upper portion of the arc (near the apex) has larger y-coordinates, weighting the arc-length integral toward higher values. (correct answer)
  4. The wire has a vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by symmetry. Integration gives yˉ=4R3π\bar{y} = \dfrac{4R}{3\pi}, which equals the centroid of a solid semicircular area — since both shapes share the same outer boundary and symmetry axis, their centroids must coincide.
Explanation: When finding the centroid of a wire (not an area), you must integrate arc-length elements — not area elements. This distinction drives nearly every error on this type of problem. The semicircular wire has a clear vertical axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0: the left half mirrors the right half perfectly, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by inspection. No integration needed there. For yˉ\bar{y}, you parameterize using angle θ\theta from 00 to π\pi, where each arc-length element is dL=RdθdL = R\,d\theta and the height of each element is y=Rsinθy = R\sin\theta. The centroid formula gives: yˉ=0πRsinθRdθ0πRdθ=R2[cosθ]0ππR=2R2πR=2Rπ0.637R\bar{y} = \frac{\int_0^{\pi} R\sin\theta \cdot R\,d\theta}{\int_0^{\pi} R\,d\theta} = \frac{R^2[-\cos\theta]_0^{\pi}}{\pi R} = \frac{2R^2}{\pi R} = \frac{2R}{\pi} \approx 0.637R This confirms C is correct. The centroid sits above the midpoint R/20.5RR/2 \approx 0.5R because more arc-length near the apex (θ90°\theta \approx 90°) carries large yy-values, pulling the centroid upward. A is wrong in its interpretation: it correctly computes yˉ=2R/π\bar{y} = 2R/\pi but falsely claims this is less than R/2R/2. In fact 2/π0.637>0.52/\pi \approx 0.637 > 0.5, so the centroid is above the midpoint, not closer to the diameter. B incorrectly gives yˉ=R/2\bar{y} = R/2, as if the wire were uniformly spread along the y-axis rather than curved along an arc — a geometry confusion. D gives 4R/3π4R/3\pi, which is the centroid of a solid semicircular area, not a wire. Sharing a boundary does not mean sharing a centroid. Study tip: Always ask yourself — is this a wire (integrate arc length) or an area (integrate area elements)? These yield different centroids even for identical shapes.

Question 5

A composite planar body consists of a solid equilateral triangle with side length 2a2a and centroid at (0,a3)\left(0,\, \dfrac{a}{\sqrt{3}}\right), from which a circular hole of radius r=a3r = \dfrac{a}{3} has been removed. The circle's center is located at (a4,a3)\left(\dfrac{a}{4},\, \dfrac{a}{\sqrt{3}}\right) — that is, at the same height as the triangle's centroid but offset horizontally.

A student notes that the equilateral triangle has a vertical axis of symmetry along x=0x = 0. Which of the following correctly describes whether and how this symmetry can be used to find the centroid of the composite body?

  1. The axis of symmetry x=0x = 0 still applies to the composite body because the triangle dominates the area; therefore xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 for the composite, and only yˉ\bar{y} requires direct calculation using the subtraction method.
  2. The axis of symmetry x=0x = 0 of the triangle is broken by the off-center hole, so the composite body has no line of symmetry. Both xˉ\bar{x} and yˉ\bar{y} must be computed via the subtraction method: xˉ=A0A(a/4)AA\bar{x} = \dfrac{A_{\triangle}\cdot 0 - A_{\circ}\cdot(a/4)}{A_{\triangle} - A_{\circ}}, which is nonzero, and yˉ\bar{y} likewise requires explicit calculation. (correct answer)
  3. The axis of symmetry x=0x = 0 of the triangle guarantees xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 for the composite regardless of hole placement, because the centroid of any subtracted region lies on a line through the triangle's centroid, preserving the horizontal balance of the body.
  4. The axis of symmetry x=0x = 0 is broken by the hole, so xˉ0\bar{x} \neq 0; however, because the hole center and the triangle centroid share the same yy-coordinate, there remains a horizontal axis of symmetry at y=a/3y = a/\sqrt{3} for the composite body, meaning yˉ=a/3\bar{y} = a/\sqrt{3} can be determined by symmetry alone without computation.
Explanation: When finding the centroid of a composite body formed by subtraction, symmetry arguments only hold if the entire composite — not just one component — possesses that symmetry. This question tests whether you can distinguish between a component's symmetry and the composite's symmetry. Since the hole is centered at (a4,a3)\left(\dfrac{a}{4},\, \dfrac{a}{\sqrt{3}}\right) rather than on the triangle's axis of symmetry x=0x = 0, the composite body is no longer symmetric about any vertical line. This means xˉ0\bar{x} \neq 0 and must be computed directly using the subtraction method: xˉ=A(0)A(a/4)AA\bar{x} = \frac{A_{\triangle}\cdot(0) - A_{\circ}\cdot(a/4)}{A_{\triangle} - A_{\circ}} Because the hole pulls mass to the right of x=0x = 0, removing it shifts the centroid leftward — but away from zero, making xˉ\bar{x} nonzero. Similarly, yˉ\bar{y} requires explicit calculation. This is exactly what B describes, making it correct. A is wrong because "dominates the area" is never a valid symmetry argument. Symmetry is a geometric property — not a weighted vote. Even a tiny off-center hole breaks the axis of symmetry completely. C is wrong for the same reason: the hole's centroid does not lie on x=0x = 0, so horizontal balance is not preserved. The claim that any subtracted region through the triangle's centroid preserves symmetry is fabricated reasoning. D is wrong because a shared yy-coordinate between two points does not create a horizontal axis of symmetry for the composite. A true axis of symmetry requires the entire shape to be a mirror image across that line, which it is not here. Your key takeaway: symmetry belongs to the composite, not its parts. Always check whether every feature of the final body respects the proposed axis before invoking symmetry to skip a calculation.

Question 6

An engineer designs a planar region R\mathcal{R} defined as follows: start with a square of side 4c4c centered at the origin (vertices at (±2c,±2c)(\pm 2c, \pm 2c)), then remove four identical circular disks each of radius c/2c/2, whose centers are at (c,c)(c, c), (c,c)(-c, c), (c,c)(-c, -c), and (c,c)(c, -c). The resulting plate has uniform areal density.

The engineer claims that by symmetry, the centroid of the resulting plate lies at the origin, and that no integration is required to determine the centroid. Which of the following best evaluates this claim?

  1. The claim is correct: the plate has an axis of symmetry at x=0x = 0, which forces xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0. Since all four holes lie at equal distances from this axis, the left-right balance is preserved. By this single symmetry argument alone the centroid is pinned to the y-axis, and a similar argument about the upper and lower holes then places it at the origin.
  2. The claim is correct for xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 and yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0, but only because the four holes are arranged with 4-fold rotational symmetry (9090^\circ rotation maps the plate onto itself). Reflective symmetry axes alone are insufficient to locate the centroid — rotational symmetry is the necessary condition for a centroid to lie at the geometric center of a body.
  3. The claim is partially correct: the plate has symmetry about x=0x = 0, forcing xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0, but the four holes break the symmetry about y=0y = 0 because two holes lie in the upper half-plane and two in the lower, making the mass distribution unequal above and below the x-axis. Therefore yˉ\bar{y} requires integration.
  4. The claim is correct: the plate has both x=0x = 0 and y=0y = 0 as axes of reflective symmetry. Under reflection about x=0x = 0, each hole maps to another hole (e.g., (c,c)(c,c)(c,c) \leftrightarrow (-c,c)), so the composite plate is symmetric about x=0x=0, forcing xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0. Under reflection about y=0y = 0, similarly (c,c)(c,c)(c,c) \leftrightarrow (c,-c), so the plate is also symmetric about y=0y = 0, forcing yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0. Two independent symmetry axes together locate the centroid at the origin with no integration required. (correct answer)
Explanation: Centroid problems are really symmetry problems in disguise. The key principle: if a shape (including any cutouts) is symmetric about a line, the centroid must lie on that line. If it lies on two independent symmetry axes, it sits at their intersection — no integration needed. Here, the square is clearly symmetric about both x=0x = 0 and y=0y = 0. The critical question is whether removing the four circular holes preserves those symmetries. Check each reflection: when you reflect about x=0x = 0, the hole at (c,c)(c, c) maps to (c,c)(-c, c) — which is exactly another hole — and (c,c)(c, -c) maps to (c,c)(-c, -c), again another hole. The composite plate looks identical after this reflection, so xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0. Repeating the argument for reflection about y=0y = 0: (c,c)(c,c)(c, c) \leftrightarrow (c, -c) and (c,c)(c,c)(-c, c) \leftrightarrow (-c, -c), both swapping existing holes. The plate is also symmetric about y=0y = 0, forcing yˉ=0\bar{y} = 0. The centroid is the origin. This is exactly what D captures. A is partially right in reasoning but incomplete — it only invokes one symmetry axis and treats the second conclusion as a "similar argument" without spelling out that both axes independently apply. The centroid logic requires both axes explicitly confirmed. B introduces a false rule: rotational symmetry is sufficient but not necessary for a centroid to lie at a geometric center. Reflective symmetry axes work perfectly well, as this problem demonstrates. C is simply wrong about the geometry. The holes come in symmetric pairs above and below the x-axis, so the plate absolutely is symmetric about y=0y = 0. Your study tip: always ask whether cutouts or additions preserve the original symmetry lines. If a removed region has a mirror image also removed, the symmetry — and the centroid argument — survives intact.

Question 7

A uniform solid hemisphere of radius RR and density ρ\rho has its flat face in the xzxz-plane with the curved surface extending into the region y>0y > 0. The centroid of a solid hemisphere is known to be at yˉ=3R/8\bar{y} = 3R/8 from the flat face.

A student places a thin uniform disk of radius RR, surface density σ\sigma, and negligible thickness on the flat face of the hemisphere (coincident with the xzxz-plane, centered at the origin), creating a composite body. The student claims: 'The hemisphere is axially symmetric about the y-axis, so xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0 for the hemisphere alone, and the disk is centered at the origin so xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0 for the disk alone. Therefore the composite has xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0, and yˉ\bar{y} for the composite is found by weighting each component centroid by its mass.' What is yˉ\bar{y} for the composite?

  1. yˉ=ρ23πR33R8+σπR20ρ23πR3+σπR2=ρπR44πR2 ⁣(2ρR3+σ)=ρR24 ⁣(2ρR3+σ)\bar{y} = \dfrac{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 \cdot \tfrac{3R}{8} + \sigma \pi R^2 \cdot 0}{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 + \sigma \pi R^2} = \dfrac{\tfrac{\rho \pi R^4}{4}}{\pi R^2\!\left(\tfrac{2\rho R}{3} + \sigma\right)} = \dfrac{\rho R^2}{4\!\left(\tfrac{2\rho R}{3} + \sigma\right)}, since the disk lies in the plane y=0y = 0 and its centroid contributes zero to the first moment. (correct answer)
  2. yˉ=ρ23πR33R8+σπR23R8ρ23πR3+σπR2=3R8\bar{y} = \dfrac{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 \cdot \tfrac{3R}{8} + \sigma \pi R^2 \cdot \tfrac{3R}{8}}{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 + \sigma \pi R^2} = \dfrac{3R}{8}, because the disk lies on the flat face of the hemisphere and therefore shares the hemisphere's centroid height 3R/83R/8, not y=0y=0.
  3. yˉ=ρ23πR33R8+σπR20ρ23πR3+σπR2\bar{y} = \dfrac{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 \cdot \tfrac{3R}{8} + \sigma \pi R^2 \cdot 0}{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 + \sigma \pi R^2}, which simplifies to ρR24(2ρR3+σ)\dfrac{\rho R^2}{4\left(\tfrac{2\rho R}{3} + \sigma\right)}; however, the student's symmetry argument is incomplete because it neglects to verify that the composite body (hemisphere plus disk) retains axial symmetry about the y-axis, which must be confirmed separately before concluding xˉ=zˉ=0\bar{x} = \bar{z} = 0.
  4. yˉ=ρ23πR33R8+σπR2Rρ23πR3+σπR2\bar{y} = \dfrac{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 \cdot \tfrac{3R}{8} + \sigma \pi R^2 \cdot R}{\rho \cdot \tfrac{2}{3}\pi R^3 + \sigma \pi R^2}, because the disk's centroid is located at y=Ry = R — the radius of the disk measured perpendicular to its face — rather than at the origin.
Explanation: When combining bodies into a composite, the centroid of each component is its own geometric center of mass — determined entirely by that component's shape and position in space, independent of what it's attached to. The thin disk lies flat in the xzxz-plane, meaning every point on the disk has y=0y = 0. By symmetry, the disk's centroid sits at the origin: yˉdisk=0\bar{y}_{\text{disk}} = 0. The hemisphere's centroid is the given yˉhemi=3R/8\bar{y}_{\text{hemi}} = 3R/8. Applying the composite centroid formula by weighting each centroid by its mass: yˉ=ρ23πR33R8+σπR20ρ23πR3+σπR2=ρπR44πR2 ⁣(2ρR3+σ)=ρR24 ⁣(2ρR3+σ)\bar{y} = \frac{\rho \cdot \frac{2}{3}\pi R^3 \cdot \frac{3R}{8} + \sigma \pi R^2 \cdot 0}{\rho \cdot \frac{2}{3}\pi R^3 + \sigma \pi R^2} = \frac{\frac{\rho\pi R^4}{4}}{\pi R^2\!\left(\frac{2\rho R}{3}+\sigma\right)} = \frac{\rho R^2}{4\!\left(\frac{2\rho R}{3}+\sigma\right)} This is answer A, and the student's reasoning is sound. Choice B is wrong because it assigns the disk a centroid height of 3R/83R/8. The disk does not inherit the hemisphere's centroid — it has its own, located at y=0y = 0 because that's where the disk actually lives in space. Choice C arrives at the same correct numerical answer as A, but claims the student's symmetry argument is incomplete. In fact, both the hemisphere and disk are individually axially symmetric about the yy-axis, so their composite is too — the argument requires no additional verification. This makes C's criticism incorrect. Choice D confuses the disk's radius RR (a length within the xzxz-plane) with a displacement along yy. The disk has zero thickness and zero yy-position, so yˉdisk=0\bar{y}_{\text{disk}} = 0, not RR. Study tip: Always ask "where is this component located in space?" before assigning its centroid. A component's centroid is its own center — it never borrows another body's centroid just because they're in contact.

Question 8

A planar lamina has the shape of a right triangle with vertices at (0,0)(0,0), (2a,0)(2a, 0), and (0,2a)(0, 2a). A student wishes to use symmetry to simplify the centroid calculation and notes that the triangle has a line of symmetry along the diagonal y=xy = x (i.e., the perpendicular bisector of the hypotenuse).

Which of the following correctly assesses the student's symmetry claim and its implications for the centroid?

  1. The student is correct that the triangle has a line of symmetry along y=xy = x: reflecting the triangle across y=xy = x swaps the vertices (2a,0)(2a, 0) and (0,2a)(0, 2a) while fixing the origin, mapping the triangle onto itself. By the '1/3 rule' for triangles, this symmetry directly gives xˉ=yˉ=2a/3\bar{x} = \bar{y} = 2a/3 with no further calculation needed.
  2. The student is correct that the triangle has a line of symmetry along y=xy = x, which forces the centroid to lie on that line, meaning xˉ=yˉ\bar{x} = \bar{y}. Symmetry alone does not determine the actual value; the standard centroid formula (average of vertex coordinates) gives xˉ=yˉ=0+2a+03=2a3\bar{x} = \bar{y} = \frac{0 + 2a + 0}{3} = \frac{2a}{3}, confirming the centroid at (2a3,2a3)\left(\frac{2a}{3},\, \frac{2a}{3}\right). (correct answer)
  3. The student is correct that reflecting across y=xy = x maps the triangle onto itself, so xˉ=yˉ\bar{x} = \bar{y} and the centroid lies on y=xy = x. Because the right-angle vertex is at the origin and each leg has length 2a2a, the centroid is at xˉ=yˉ=a/3\bar{x} = \bar{y} = a/3, located one-third of the leg length from the right-angle vertex.
  4. The student is incorrect: the line y=xy = x is not an axis of symmetry for this right triangle because a true axis of symmetry must pass through a vertex and bisect the opposite side perpendicularly, which y=xy = x does not do here. Therefore both xˉ\bar{x} and yˉ\bar{y} must be found independently by integration.
Explanation: When a shape has a line of symmetry, the centroid must lie on that line — this is the key principle being tested. Your first task is always to verify whether the symmetry claim is valid, then determine what it actually tells you (and doesn't tell you) about the centroid's location. The line y=xy = x genuinely is an axis of symmetry for this triangle. Reflecting across y=xy = x swaps x- and y-coordinates, sending (2a,0)(0,2a)(2a, 0) \to (0, 2a) and (0,2a)(2a,0)(0, 2a) \to (2a, 0), while fixing the origin. The triangle maps onto itself, so the centroid must satisfy xˉ=yˉ\bar{x} = \bar{y}. To find the actual value, use the standard result: the centroid of any triangle is the average of its three vertex coordinates. This gives xˉ=yˉ=0+2a+03=2a3\bar{x} = \bar{y} = \frac{0 + 2a + 0}{3} = \frac{2a}{3}, placing the centroid at (2a3,2a3)\left(\frac{2a}{3}, \frac{2a}{3}\right). This is answer B, and it's correct precisely because it separates what symmetry proves from what still requires calculation. Answer A conflates two separate ideas: the symmetry argument correctly gives xˉ=yˉ\bar{x} = \bar{y}, but the "1/3 rule" is what produces the numerical value — A wrongly implies symmetry alone yields the number without further work. Answer C correctly identifies the symmetry but then misapplies the 1/3 rule. One-third of the leg length from the origin gives a/3a/3, not 2a/32a/3 — this confuses measuring from a vertex versus measuring from the opposite side. Answer D is simply wrong: y=xy = x does function as a line of symmetry here, and independent integration is unnecessary once symmetry reduces the problem to a single unknown. Study tip: Always treat symmetry as a two-step tool — it reduces unknowns, but you still need a formula or integration to pin down the actual coordinate value.

Question 9

Two thin uniform rods are welded together. Rod 1 has length 3L3L and linear density λ\lambda, oriented along the x-axis from x=3L/2x = -3L/2 to x=3L/2x = 3L/2. Rod 2 has length 2L2L and linear density 2λ2\lambda, oriented along the y-axis from y=0y = 0 to y=2Ly = 2L. The rods intersect at the origin.

A student claims: 'Rod 1 is symmetric about the y-axis, so it contributes xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0. Rod 2 lies entirely on the y-axis, so it also contributes xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0. Therefore by superposition, xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 for the composite system, and I can find yˉ\bar{y} using only the y-coordinates of each rod's centroid.' Which of the following is true?

  1. The student's argument for xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 is valid, but yˉ\bar{y} is incorrectly computed as yˉ=(3λL)(0)+(2λL)(L)3λL+2λL=2L5\bar{y} = \dfrac{(3\lambda L)(0) + (2\lambda L)(L)}{3\lambda L + 2\lambda L} = \dfrac{2L}{5}, because Rod 2's linear density is 2λ2\lambda but its length is only LL when measuring from the centroid, so its effective mass is 2λL2\lambda L.
  2. The student's argument for xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 is valid, and yˉ\bar{y} is correctly computed as yˉ=(3λL)(0)+(4λL)(L)3λL+4λL=4L7\bar{y} = \dfrac{(3\lambda L)(0) + (4\lambda L)(L)}{3\lambda L + 4\lambda L} = \dfrac{4L}{7}, where the mass of Rod 2 is m2=2λ2L=4λLm_2 = 2\lambda \cdot 2L = 4\lambda L and its centroid is at y=Ly = L. (correct answer)
  3. The student's argument for xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 is valid, and yˉ\bar{y} is correctly computed as yˉ=(3λL)(0)+(4λL)(2L)3λL+4λL=8L7\bar{y} = \dfrac{(3\lambda L)(0) + (4\lambda L)(2L)}{3\lambda L + 4\lambda L} = \dfrac{8L}{7}, where the centroid of Rod 2 is taken as its top endpoint y=2Ly = 2L rather than its midpoint.
  4. The student's argument for xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 is valid, and yˉ=(3λL)(0)+(2λL)(L)3λL+2λL=2L5\bar{y} = \dfrac{(3\lambda L)(0) + (2\lambda L)(L)}{3\lambda L + 2\lambda L} = \dfrac{2L}{5}, where the mass of Rod 2 is 2λL2\lambda L using its length 2L2L and the base linear density λ\lambda rather than its actual density 2λ2\lambda.
Explanation: When finding the centroid of a composite body, you need two things for each component: its total mass and the location of its own centroid. The superposition formula is yˉ=miyˉimi\bar{y} = \frac{\sum m_i \bar{y}_i}{\sum m_i}, where each mim_i is the full mass of that piece. For this system, the argument that xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 is sound: Rod 1 is symmetric about the y-axis (centroid at x=0x = 0), and Rod 2 lies on the y-axis (every point has x=0x = 0), so both contributions vanish and xˉ=0\bar{x} = 0 by superposition. For yˉ\bar{y}, calculate each mass carefully. Rod 1 has linear density λ\lambda and length 3L3L, so m1=3λLm_1 = 3\lambda L, with centroid at y=0y = 0 (it lies on the x-axis). Rod 2 has linear density 2λ2\lambda and length 2L2L, so m2=2λ2L=4λLm_2 = 2\lambda \cdot 2L = 4\lambda L. Its centroid sits at the midpoint of y=0y = 0 to y=2Ly = 2L, which is yˉ2=L\bar{y}_2 = L. Applying superposition: yˉ=(3λL)(0)+(4λL)(L)3λL+4λL=4L7\bar{y} = \frac{(3\lambda L)(0) + (4\lambda L)(L)}{3\lambda L + 4\lambda L} = \frac{4L}{7}. This confirms B is correct. Choice A incorrectly uses m2=2λLm_2 = 2\lambda L, as if Rod 2's length were only LL — confusing the distance from centroid to origin with the rod's actual length. Choice C uses yˉ2=2L\bar{y}_2 = 2L, mistaking the rod's endpoint for its centroid. Choice D ignores Rod 2's actual density, using λ\lambda instead of 2λ2\lambda, which halves the mass. A reliable habit: always write out mi=ρi×Lim_i = \rho_i \times L_i explicitly before plugging into the centroid formula — density and length are both easy to misread under pressure.