Ah alright.

Thanks!

Hey Jefferson! I'm more in your camp here - Using Simpson's Rule in this context is flawed because the area in this case is being

**linearly swept**, not

**rotated**, to produce a volume. Intuitively I think of it this way - How can we give a

**three dimensional measurement**, with absolutely no information about the third dimension? In actual practical terms, that is nonsense, and so is the way they did this question

Rui is correct in that, when we do need to use Simpson's Rule for Volume, we just do it by approximating the volume integral using the formula. It's just that in this case it is a bit of a flawed exercise, because the volume we want isn't generated by rotation. This is a common thing that resources tend to get a bit wrong, I tended to just roll with it when I did my HSC

(An example where this works

*perfectly* might be if we were given a vase, and radial measurements of that vase along its height, the volume integral then would be an accurate thing to do because you can think of the vase volume as a rotated area)