Krushnaraj Pandya said:
I mean the original was correct.I got 35 km/hr, sorry I didn't mention it.
I agree as well. An amazing thing to know is, In India the exam-coaching industry is bigger than bollywood, almost every school student goes to a coaching center and the teachers there are paid to teach and remove doubts over such things but they only say "do this, that, use the formula" and dismiss it without much concern for any of the students while the people on PF here care so much more about my learning even though they have nothing to gain from it...Thank you for that :D
You still have refused to answer two of my questions, even though I had good reasons to ask them. These are
(1) which model are you using---the original "profit" maximization in post #1 or the "cost" minimization proposed in post #5?
(2) what is your resulting minimum cost or maximum profit?
EDIT: I see that you at least hinted at the answer to question (1), although you were not very clear and explicit: you seemed to be saying that you were using model (1), shown below.
When I do it I have either
$$ \max\;\; 6 \left( \frac{400}{x}\right) - 400\left(12+ \frac x 6 \right), \; 35 \leq x \leq 60 \hspace{4ex} (1)$$
or
$$\min\;\; 6 \left( \frac{400}{x} \right) + 400\left(12+ \frac x 6 \right), \; 35 \leq x \leq 60 \hspace{4ex} (2)$$
Problem (1) is the profit maximization problem, while (2) is the cost minimization problem. Both have the solution ##x = 35## (km/hr). The maximum profit is ##P_{\max} = - 7064.76## rupees (a
loss of 7064.76 rupees), while the minimum cost is ##C_{\min} = 7201.90## rupees.
So, if you were trying to help the trucker maximize his profit, you should advise him to turn down the job and stay home; he will lose less money that way.
The cost model in (2) is perfectly sensible, and is similar to many models encountered in real-world applications. However, in my opinion your profit model in (1) does not make economic or practical sense; I think it models the situation incorrectly. However, we can speak about that further off-line, perhaps in a PF "conversation".