Originally posted by KeypadSDM
I would have to disagree.
The maximum area is nearly, but not equal to 2.25 m^2 as the question states that some wire must be used to form both the square and the rectangle.
I.e. 0 < x < 6, not 0 <= x <= 6
You have raised an interesting point, one that I have given some thought, and here is my response:
The problem here lies with the interpretation of the word "cut". The question simply says that the wire is cut (ie. partitioned) into two parts - it does not explicitly state that each piece is non-zero in length.
You are interpreting "cut" as requiring non-zero parts. This leads (as you suggest) to 0 < x < 6, and hence to the maximum area being as close as you like to 2.25 m^2, which could really only be expressed mathematically as a limit, ie. lim (x ---> 0) A(max) = 2.25 m^2.
I would contend that "cut" does not require non-zero parts. Mathematically, partitioning an object into two parts, one of size zero, is perfectly valid. In this case, the part of length 0 m is used to form a rectangle of area 0 m^2, having a width of 0 m and a length of 3 * 0 = 0 m, and the maximum area is 2.25 m^2.
I have checked on this with a mate of mine, who has a first class honours degree in pure mathematics, and he confirmed that partitioning or cutting the wire as I have described is valid.
I should point out that the point we are discussing is hair splitting - I think any reasonable marker would accept an answer based on either interpretation, provided the explanation accompanying it was sufficiently clear.