Falling Problem from AAMC practice

[Maxxxx]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Please see the problem below. This is a question from AAMC #11. Does anyone else find this question very misleading? I immediately crossed out choice B because no where in the question does it say the object was falling from rest. One could easily imagine an instance just before an object hit the ground after it had fallen from a high place.


Which of the following statements best explains why air resistance is ignored when a compact object falls a very short distance?
A)The object's mechanical energy is constant.
B)The speed of the object remains small
C) The area presented to the air is negligible.
D) Gravity does negligible work in this situation.

CORRECT ANSWER: B) The speed of the object remains small.

 

[brood910]

This is another passage-based problem. They clearly stated that air resistance is proportional to v^2.

 

[Maxxxx]

This is another passage-based problem. They clearly stated that air resistance is proportional to v^2.

Yes, I got that from the passage. What I didn't get is where was it stated/implied that the object was falling from rest, so that the speed can be assumed to be small. If an object was just about to hit the ground after falling a long time, the speed would be big.

 

[brood910]

I think it's pretty obvious that it's falling from rest.
Even if it's not, when it gets to the top, its Vy is zero.

 

[Maxxxx]

Well, I obviously was way over thinking this problem. But I still think this question is poorly worded. When I saw "falling a very short distance", my mind immediately goes to "small distance doesn't mean small velocity". When I didn't see from rest anywhere, I just convinced myself that had to be a trap answer. Especially with other "possible", albeit, not very good choices present.