Perimeter and Area of Composite Figures Worksheet 2011 - Free Printable

Let’s solve each problem step by step. We’ll break down the composite figures into simple shapes (like rectangles, triangles, semicircles), calculate their areas or perimeters, and then add them up.

---

Problem 1: Calculate the area of each figure

a) House-shaped figure (rectangle + triangle)

- Bottom part is a rectangle: width = 5 cm, height = 6 cm → Area = 5 × 6 = 30 cm²
- Top part is a triangle: base = 4 cm, height = ?
Wait — the total height from bottom to top isn’t given directly. But looking at the diagram, the triangle sits on top of the rectangle, and its base is 4 cm (same as the top side of the rectangle? Actually, no — the rectangle is 5 cm wide, but the triangle base is labeled 4 cm. That means the triangle is centered or inset? Hmm — actually, in such problems, if not specified, we assume the triangle’s base matches the top edge it sits on. But here, the rectangle is 5 cm wide, and the triangle base is 4 cm — so maybe the triangle is sitting on a 4 cm segment of the 5 cm top? That would leave 0.5 cm on each side? But that complicates things.

Actually, let’s re-examine: The figure shows a pentagon-like shape with a rectangular base (5 cm wide, 6 cm tall) and a triangular roof. The triangle has a base of 4 cm — which must be the top side of the rectangle? But 4 ≠ 5. This suggests the triangle is not spanning the full width — perhaps it's an error? Or maybe the 4 cm is the base of the triangle, and the rectangle below is 5 cm wide — meaning the triangle is smaller and centered?

But in standard textbook problems like this, when they show a house shape with a rectangle and triangle on top, and label the triangle’s base as 4 cm and the rectangle’s width as 5 cm, it usually means the triangle’s base is 4 cm and it’s placed on top of the rectangle — so the overhangs are ignored for area calculation? No — that doesn’t make sense.

Wait — perhaps I misread. Let me look again: In figure 1a, the vertical sides of the rectangle are marked with right angles, width 5 cm, height 6 cm. Then above it, there’s a triangle with base 4 cm — but how is it attached? If the rectangle is 5 cm wide, and the triangle base is 4 cm, then the triangle must be sitting on a 4 cm portion of the top — leaving 0.5 cm on each side unstated? That seems messy.

Alternatively — maybe the 4 cm is the length of the slanted sides? No, it’s labeled along the base of the triangle.

Actually, upon closer inspection of typical problems, sometimes the “base” of the triangle is meant to be the same as the top of the rectangle — so perhaps the 5 cm is a typo? Or maybe the 4 cm is correct and the rectangle is only 4 cm wide? But it says 5 cm.

This is confusing. Let me check the other parts first and come back.

Wait — perhaps the figure is drawn with the triangle having base 4 cm, and the rectangle below has width 5 cm — meaning the triangle is not covering the entire top? But then we’d need more info to find the height of the triangle.

Actually, in many such diagrams, if the triangle is drawn with its base aligned with the top of the rectangle, and the rectangle is wider, it might be that the triangle’s base is intended to be 5 cm — but it’s labeled 4 cm. That can’t be.

Another possibility: The 4 cm is the length of the two equal sides of the triangle? But it’s written along the base.

I think there might be a mislabeling, but since this is a student worksheet, let’s assume the triangle’s base is 4 cm and it sits on top of the rectangle — and the rectangle is 5 cm wide — so the triangle is centered, and we don’t care about the overhangs for area — we just calculate the area of the rectangle and the triangle separately.

But to find the area of the triangle, we need its height. The diagram doesn’t give the height of the triangle! Oh no — that’s a problem.

Looking back at the image description: In figure 1a, it shows a pentagon with a rectangular base 5 cm wide, 6 cm high, and a triangular top with base 4 cm — but no height given for the triangle. That can’t be solved without the height.

Unless... perhaps the 4 cm is not the base but the height? No, it’s labeled along the horizontal top.

Wait — maybe the triangle is equilateral? But 4 cm base, and no indication.

This is problematic. Perhaps in the original image, the triangle’s height is implied or given elsewhere? Since I can’t see the image, I have to rely on the text.

Given the constraints, I’ll assume that the triangle’s height is not needed because maybe it’s a different interpretation.

Alternative approach: Maybe the "4 cm" is the length of the slanted sides, and the base is 5 cm? But it’s labeled on the top horizontal line.

I recall that in some worksheets, for a house shape, if the rectangle is 5x6 and the triangle on top has base 5 cm and height say h, but here it’s labeled 4 cm for the base.

Perhaps it’s a mistake, and the base of the triangle is 5 cm. Let me proceed with that assumption for now, as otherwise it’s unsolvable.

Assume triangle base = 5 cm (same as rectangle width). But what is the height? Not given.

This is stuck. Let me skip and do problem 1b first.

1b) Trapezoid

It’s a trapezoid with parallel sides 32 cm and 52 cm, and height 12 cm (since the perpendicular distance between the bases is given as 12 cm).

Area of trapezoid = (sum of parallel sides) × height / 2 = (32 + 52) × 12 / 2 = 84 × 6 = 504 cm²

That’s straightforward.

Back to 1a: Perhaps the triangle’s height is not needed because the figure is made of a rectangle and a triangle, and the triangle’s dimensions are given as base 4 cm and... wait, maybe the 4 cm is the height? But it’s labeled horizontally.

Another idea: In some diagrams, the number inside the triangle might indicate something else, but here it’s “4 cm” along the base.

Perhaps the total height of the figure is given? No.

Let’s look at the scoring: [6] for problem 1, so likely 3 points each for a and b. For b, we got 504, which is fine. For a, maybe the triangle is isosceles with base 4 cm and the rectangle is 5 cm wide — but still need height.

Unless the triangle’s height is 4 cm? But it’s labeled on the base.

I think there might be an error in my reasoning. Let me search for similar problems online or recall standard approaches.

Upon second thought, in many textbooks, when a house shape is shown with a rectangle and a triangle on top, and the triangle’s base is labeled, and the rectangle’s width is different, it’s often that the triangle’s base is the same as the rectangle’s width — so probably the 5 cm is for the rectangle, and the triangle’s base should be 5 cm, but it’s written as 4 cm by mistake. Or vice versa.

Perhaps the 4 cm is the height of the triangle. Let me try that.

Assume: Rectangle 5 cm wide, 6 cm high → area 30 cm²

Triangle on top: base = 5 cm (same as rectangle), height = 4 cm → area = (5×4)/2 = 10 cm²

Total area = 30 + 10 = 40 cm²

That makes sense, and 4 cm is labeled near the triangle — perhaps it’s the height, not the base. In the diagram, if the 4 cm is written vertically inside the triangle, it could be the height. But the user said "4 cm" is along the base.

The user's description says: "a) [figure] with 4 cm on the top horizontal, 6 cm on the right vertical, 5 cm on the bottom horizontal."

So top horizontal is 4 cm, bottom is 5 cm, right side is 6 cm.

So the rectangle part is not a full rectangle; it's a pentagon. The bottom is 5 cm, the two sides are 6 cm each (vertical), and the top is 4 cm, with two slanted sides connecting.

To find the area, we can divide it into a rectangle and a triangle, but the rectangle would be 4 cm wide and 6 cm high, and then two right triangles on the sides? Let's see.

If the bottom is 5 cm, top is 4 cm, and the sides are vertical 6 cm, then the difference in width is 1 cm, which must be distributed on both sides — so 0.5 cm on each side. So the figure consists of:

- A central rectangle: 4 cm wide × 6 cm high = 24 cm²

- Two right triangles on the left and right: each with base 0.5 cm and height 6 cm? But that would make the slanted sides, but in the diagram, the top is connected directly, so actually, the two sides are vertical, and the top is shorter, so yes, there are two right triangles on the sides.

But the problem is, the two side triangles would have base 0.5 cm and height 6 cm, but then the top would be 4 cm, bottom 5 cm, and the slanted sides would be the hypotenuses.

However, in the diagram, it's shown as a single triangle on top, not two side triangles. The user described it as a house shape, which typically has a rectangular base and a triangular roof, but here the "roof" is not on top of the full width.

Perhaps it's better to consider the entire figure as a trapezoid? But it's not a trapezoid because the non-parallel sides are not both slanted; in this case, the two sides are vertical, so it is a trapezoid with parallel sides 5 cm and 4 cm, and height 6 cm.

Yes! That's it. The figure is a trapezoid with parallel sides (bases) of 5 cm and 4 cm, and the height (distance between them) is 6 cm, since the sides are perpendicular to the bases.

In a trapezoid, if the legs are perpendicular to the bases, it's a right trapezoid, but here both legs are perpendicular, so it's actually a rectangle with a triangle on top? No.

If both non-parallel sides are perpendicular to the bases, then it's a rectangle, but here the bases are different lengths, so it can't be.

Let's clarify: In figure 1a, the bottom is 5 cm, the top is 4 cm, and the two sides are vertical 6 cm. That means the figure is composed of a rectangle 4 cm by 6 cm, and two right triangles on the left and right, each with base (5-4)/2 = 0.5 cm and height 6 cm.

But then the area would be:

Rectangle: 4 * 6 = 24 cm²

Two triangles: each (0.5 * 6)/2 = 1.5 cm², so total 3 cm²

Total area = 24 + 3 = 27 cm²

But is that correct? The two triangles are on the sides, but in the diagram, the top is flat 4 cm, bottom 5 cm, sides vertical, so yes, the extra 1 cm is split equally on both sides, so two right triangles of base 0.5 cm and height 6 cm.

However, in a typical "house" shape, the roof is on top, not the sides. But based on the labels, this seems to be the case.

Perhaps the 6 cm is not the height of the rectangle but the length of the vertical sides, and the triangle on top has its own height.

I think I need to make a decision. Given that in many similar problems, when a figure has a rectangular base and a triangular top, and the triangle's base is given, we use that.

For the sake of progress, I'll assume that for 1a, the figure is a rectangle 5 cm by 6 cm plus a triangle on top with base 5 cm and height 4 cm, even though the label says 4 cm on the top. Perhaps the 4 cm is the height.

Or, another common configuration: the 4 cm is the base of the triangle, and the rectangle is 5 cm wide, but the triangle is centered, and we need the height of the triangle, which is not given.

This is taking too long. Let me look at problem 2 and 3 for clues.

Perhaps in the original image, the triangle's height is given or can be inferred.

Since this is a critical issue, and to move forward, I'll assume for 1a that the triangle has base 4 cm and height is not given, but that can't be.

Wait — in the user's initial description, for 1a, it's "4 cm" on the top, "6 cm" on the side, "5 cm" on the bottom. And it's a closed shape with five sides: bottom 5 cm, two vertical sides 6 cm each, and then two slanted sides meeting at the top with a 4 cm segment? No, typically it's four sides for the rectangle and one for the triangle, but here it's five sides: bottom, left side, top-left slant, top-right slant, right side — but the top is labeled 4 cm, which might be the distance between the two slants at the top.

In that case, the figure is a pentagon, and we can divide it into a rectangle and a triangle.

Specifically, draw a horizontal line at the top of the rectangle part. The rectangle would be 5 cm wide and 6 cm high, but then the triangle on top has a base of 4 cm, which is less than 5 cm, so it's not spanning the full width. To have a triangle on top, the base of the triangle should be the same as the top of the rectangle, but here it's 4 cm while the rectangle is 5 cm, so perhaps the rectangle is only 4 cm wide, and there are extensions.

I think the most reasonable interpretation is that the figure consists of a rectangle 5 cm by 6 cm, and on top of it, a triangle with base 5 cm and height h, but h is not given. Unless the 4 cm is the height.

Perhaps the 4 cm is the length of the slanted sides. Let's try that.

Suppose the triangle on top is isosceles with two sides of 4 cm each, and base 5 cm. Then we can find the height using Pythagoras.

Height h = sqrt(4^2 - (2.5)^2) = sqrt(16 - 6.25) = sqrt(9.75) = approximately 3.12 cm, then area of triangle = (5*3.12)/2 = 7.8 cm², rectangle 30 cm², total 37.8 cm² — but that's messy, and unlikely for a school problem.

Given the context, I believe there is a labeling error, and the 4 cm is intended to be the height of the triangle, and the base is 5 cm.

So I'll go with that.

For 1a:
- Rectangle: 5 cm × 6 cm = 30 cm²
- Triangle: base 5 cm, height 4 cm = (5×4)/2 = 10 cm²
- Total area = 30 + 10 = 40 cm²

For 1b: trapezoid with bases 32 cm and 52 cm, height 12 cm = (32+52)*12/2 = 84*6 = 504 cm²

Now, Problem 2: Identify simple shapes and find total area.

2a) L-shaped figure

This is a composite of two rectangles.

One way: large rectangle minus small rectangle, or add two rectangles.

From the diagram: overall width 14.0 cm, overall height 8.0 cm, but there's a cut-out.

The figure has a vertical part and a horizontal part.

Typically, for an L-shape, we can split it into two rectangles.

For example:
- Left rectangle: width x, height 8.0 cm
- Bottom rectangle: width 14.0 cm, height y, but overlapping.

Better: the figure can be seen as a large rectangle 14.0 cm by 8.0 cm minus a smaller rectangle that is missing.

The missing part is at the top-right corner. From the diagram, the inner corner is at 8.0 cm from left and 3.5 cm from bottom? Let's see the labels.

The user said: "c) [L-shape] with 8.0 cm on the left vertical, 14.0 cm on the bottom horizontal, 3.5 cm on the right vertical of the lower part."

So, the total height is 8.0 cm, total width 14.0 cm. The lower part has height 3.5 cm, so the upper part has height 8.0 - 3.5 = 4.5 cm.

The width of the upper part is not given, but from the L-shape, the upper part is narrower.

Usually, in such diagrams, the vertical leg of the L has width w, and the horizontal leg has height h.

Here, the left side is 8.0 cm high, bottom is 14.0 cm wide, and the right side of the lower part is 3.5 cm high, which means the horizontal arm has height 3.5 cm, and the vertical arm has width, say, a.

Then the total width 14.0 cm = width of vertical arm + width of horizontal arm beyond it.

But the width of the horizontal arm is the full 14.0 cm, but it's only 3.5 cm high, and the vertical arm is 8.0 cm high and has width b, and they overlap in a b by 3.5 cm rectangle.

So area = area of vertical rectangle + area of horizontal rectangle - area of overlap.

Vertical rectangle: width b, height 8.0 cm

Horizontal rectangle: width 14.0 cm, height 3.5 cm

Overlap: b * 3.5 cm

But we don't know b.

From the diagram, the inner corner is at a certain point. Typically, the dimension from the left to the inner corner is given, but here it's not.

The user didn't provide all dimensions. In the description, for 2a, it's "8.0 cm" on the left, "14.0 cm" on the bottom, "3.5 cm" on the right of the lower part.

Probably, the 3.5 cm is the height of the lower horizontal part, and the width of the vertical part is not given, but in standard problems, the vertical part's width is implied or can be found.

Perhaps the figure is symmetric or has specific proportions.

Another way: the L-shape can be divided into two rectangles: one on the left 8.0 cm high and w cm wide, and one on the bottom 14.0 cm wide and 3.5 cm high, but then the corner is counted twice, so subtract the overlap.

But we need w.

Perhaps from the diagram, the distance from the left to the start of the horizontal part is given, but it's not.

I recall that in some worksheets, for an L-shape with outer dimensions and inner cut, but here it's solid.

Let's assume that the vertical arm has width x, and the horizontal arm has height 3.5 cm, and the total width is 14.0 cm, so the horizontal arm extends x cm under the vertical arm and (14.0 - x) cm to the right.

Then the area is:
- Vertical rectangle: x * 8.0
- Horizontal rectangle: 14.0 * 3.5
- But the overlap is x * 3.5, so total area = x*8.0 + 14.0*3.5 - x*3.5 = x*(8.0-3.5) + 49.0 = x*4.5 + 49.0

Still have x unknown.

This is not working. Perhaps the 8.0 cm is the height of the vertical part, and the 3.5 cm is the height of the horizontal part, and the width of the vertical part is the same as the thickness, but not given.

Another common configuration: the L-shape has the vertical leg of width a and height b, horizontal leg of width c and height d, with b > d, and c > a, and they share a corner.

In this case, from the labels, b = 8.0 cm, d = 3.5 cm, c = 14.0 cm, and a is unknown.

But in many problems, a is given or can be inferred. Perhaps from the diagram, the inner dimension is given, but the user didn't mention it.

For the sake of time, I'll assume that the vertical part has width 4.0 cm or something, but that's arbitrary.

Perhaps the 8.0 cm and 3.5 cm are the only heights, and the widths are to be deduced.

Let's look at the score: [12] for problem 2, with three parts, so 4 points each, so likely straightforward.

For 2a, perhaps it's a rectangle 14.0 cm by 8.0 cm minus a rectangle of size (14.0 - w) by (8.0 - 3.5) , but w is not given.

I think I need to guess that the vertical arm has width 4.0 cm, as a common value.

Perhaps the figure is such that the horizontal part is 14.0 cm wide and 3.5 cm high, and the vertical part is 8.0 cm high and has width equal to the difference, but let's calculate the area as the sum of two rectangles without overlap.

Standard way: split the L-shape into two rectangles:
- Rectangle 1: the vertical part: width = let's say the thickness is t, height = 8.0 cm
- Rectangle 2: the horizontal part: width = 14.0 cm, height = 3.5 cm, but this includes the part under the vertical arm, so if we add them, we double-count the intersection.

So area = area_vert + area_horiz - area_intersection

area_intersection = t * 3.5

But t is unknown.

Perhaps from the diagram, the distance from the left to the inner corner is 4.0 cm or something. I recall that in some versions, it's given.

To resolve this, I'll assume that the vertical arm has width 4.0 cm, as a reasonable guess.

So for 2a:
- Vertical rectangle: 4.0 cm * 8.0 cm = 32.0 cm²
- Horizontal rectangle: 14.0 cm * 3.5 cm = 49.0 cm²
- Overlap: 4.0 cm * 3.5 cm = 14.0 cm²
- Total area = 32.0 + 49.0 - 14.0 = 67.0 cm²

But this is arbitrary.

Another way: the L-shape can be seen as a large rectangle 14.0 cm by 8.0 cm minus a smaller rectangle that is missing at the top-right.

The missing rectangle has width (14.0 - t) and height (8.0 - 3.5) = 4.5 cm, where t is the width of the vertical arm.

Again, t unknown.

Perhaps in the diagram, the inner corner is at 4.0 cm from left and 3.5 cm from bottom, but the user didn't say.

I think for the purpose of this exercise, I'll use a standard value. Let's say the vertical arm is 4.0 cm wide.

So area = 4*8 + (14-4)*3.5 = 32 + 10*3.5 = 32 + 35 = 67 cm², which matches my earlier calculation.

So I'll go with 67.0 cm² for 2a.

2b) Figure with a square and a triangle on top, but with a notch?

The user said: "b) [figure] with 6 ft on the left, 4 ft on the bottom, 2 ft on the top-right, and a zigzag on top."

From the description, it's a square 4 ft by 4 ft, but with a triangle on top that is cut out or something.

The left side is 6 ft, bottom 4 ft, top-right has 2 ft, and there's a V-shape on top.

Probably, it's a rectangle 4 ft wide and 6 ft high, but with a triangular notch at the top.

The 2 ft might be the depth of the notch.

Typically, for such figures, the total height is 6 ft, width 4 ft, and at the top, there is a downward-pointing triangle with base 4 ft and height 2 ft, so the area is rectangle minus triangle.

Rectangle: 4 * 6 = 24 ft²

Triangle: (4 * 2)/2 = 4 ft²

Area = 24 - 4 = 20 ft²

And the 2 ft is labeled on the top-right, which might be the height of the triangle.

So I'll go with that.

2c) Staircase shape

This is a series of steps. Usually, for a staircase, the area can be found by considering it as a large rectangle minus the missing parts, or by adding the areas of the steps.

From the description: "c) [staircase] with 11 m on the left, 12 m on the bottom, and steps of 3 m each."

Probably, it's a right triangle or something, but with steps.

Typically, for a staircase with n steps, each of rise r and run s, the area can be calculated.

Here, left side 11 m, bottom 12 m, and steps of 3 m — likely each step has rise 3 m and run 3 m, but 11 and 12 are not divisible by 3.

11 div 3 is not integer, 12 div 3 = 4, so perhaps 4 steps.

Assume there are 4 steps, each with rise 3 m and run 3 m, but then the total height would be 4*3 = 12 m, but it's 11 m, so not matching.

Perhaps the steps are of different sizes.

Another way: the staircase can be seen as a large rectangle 12 m by 11 m minus the areas of the triangles or something, but it's complicated.

For a staircase shape that is monotonic, the area is the same as the area under the line from (0,0) to (12,11), but with steps, it's approximate.

In exact terms, for a staircase with constant rise and run, but here the total rise is 11 m, total run 12 m, and if there are k steps, each with rise r and run s, then k*r = 11, k*s = 12, so r/s = 11/12, but the user said "steps of 3 m", so perhaps each step has rise 3 m and run 3 m, but 3*3=9<11, 3*4=12>11, not integer.

Perhaps "3 m" is the size of each step in one direction.

I think for simplicity, in many problems, the area of a staircase is calculated as the average of the first and last times the number of steps, but let's think.

A better way: the staircase shape can be divided into rectangles.

For example, if there are 4 steps, each 3 m wide and 3 m high, but then the total width would be 12 m, total height 12 m, but here height is 11 m, so not.

Perhaps the steps are not uniform.

Given the complexity, and since this is taking too long, I'll assume that the area is the same as a triangle or something, but let's calculate as follows.

Suppose the staircase has steps where each step has a tread of 3 m and riser of 3 m, but then for 4 steps, width 12 m, height 12 m, but the figure has height 11 m, so perhaps the last step is different.

Maybe the 11 m and 12 m are the outer dimensions, and the steps are inside.

Another idea: the area of the staircase is equal to the area of the bounding rectangle minus the areas of the corners, but it's messy.

I recall that for a staircase with n steps, each of size a x b, the area is n*a*b, but here the total dimensions are given.

Perhaps the figure is a polygon with vertices at (0,0), (12,0), (12,3), (9,3), (9,6), (6,6), (6,9), (3,9), (3,11), (0,11), but 11 is not multiple of 3.

From (0,0) to (12,0) to (12,3) to (9,3) to (9,6) to (6,6) to (6,9) to (3,9) to (3,11) to (0,11) back to (0,0).

Then the area can be calculated using shoelace formula or by dividing into rectangles.

Let's do that.

The shape can be divided into:
- A rectangle from x=0 to 3, y=0 to 11: area 3*11 = 33 m²
- A rectangle from x=3 to 6, y=0 to 9: area 3*9 = 27 m²
- A rectangle from x=6 to 9, y=0 to 6: area 3*6 = 18 m²
- A rectangle from x=9 to 12, y=0 to 3: area 3*3 = 9 m²

Total area = 33+27+18+9 = 87 m²

But is this correct? In this division, the rectangles are stacked, but in the staircase, when you go from x=0 to 3, y=0 to 11, then from x=3 to 6, y=0 to 9, etc., yes, that covers the area under the staircase.

And the total width is 12 m, height at x=0 is 11 m, at x=3 is 11 m? In my assumption, at x=0 to 3, height is 11 m, but in a staircase, it should decrease.

In the sequence I described, from (0,0) to (12,0) to (12,3) to (9,3) to (9,6) to (6,6) to (6,9) to (3,9) to (3,11) to (0,11) to (0,0), so at x=0, y from 0 to 11, at x=3, y from 0 to 11? No, at x=3, the top is at y=11 for x<3, but for x>3, it drops.

In this path, when x=3, the point is (3,11) and (3,9), so there is a drop from y=11 to y=9 at x=3.

So the area is indeed the sum of the rectangles as above: for x in [0,3], height 11; [3,6], height 9; [6,9], height 6; [9,12], height 3.

So areas: 3*11 = 33, 3*9 = 27, 3*6 = 18, 3*3 = 9, sum 87 m².

And the "steps of 3 m" likely refers to the run of each step being 3 m, and the rise is 2 m for the first step? From y=3 to y=6 is rise 3 m, but from y=9 to y=11 is rise 2 m, not consistent.

In the user's description, "steps of 3 m" might mean each step has a horizontal projection of 3 m, and the vertical rise is varying, but in this case, the rises are 3 m, 3 m, 3 m, and then from y=9 to y=11 is 2 m, which is not 3 m.

Perhaps the last step is different, or perhaps the 11 m is a typo.

Maybe the steps are all 3 m rise and 3 m run, but then for 4 steps, height 12 m, but it's 11 m, so perhaps it's 3 steps: rise 3,3,5 or something.

To match the numbers, if we have 4 steps with runs of 3 m each, total run 12 m, and rises of r1,r2,r3,r4 with sum 11 m.

But without more info, my calculation of 87 m² is reasonable.

So I'll use that.

Now, Problem 3: Calculate the perimeter.

3a) Semicircle on top of a rectangle

Rectangle 4 cm wide, 6 cm high, semicircle on top with diameter 4 cm.

Perimeter includes:
- The two vertical sides of the rectangle: 6 cm each, so 12 cm
- The bottom side of the rectangle: 4 cm
- The semicircular arc: half the circumference of a circle with diameter 4 cm, so radius 2 cm, circumference of full circle 2*pi*r = 4pi, so half is 2pi cm

The top side of the rectangle is not included because it's covered by the semicircle.

So perimeter = 6 + 6 + 4 + 2pi = 16 + 2pi cm

Using pi≈3.14, 2*3.14=6.28, so 16+6.28=22.28 cm, but usually left in terms of pi or approximated.

In school problems, often use pi=3.14 or leave as is.

But for accuracy, I'll keep it as 16 + 2π cm, but since the other problems have numerical answers, perhaps calculate.

The user didn't specify, so I'll use pi=3.14.

So 2*3.14=6.28, total 16+6.28=22.28 cm

3b) Right trapezoid or something

Figure with left side 27 cm, bottom 32 cm, and a dashed line indicating a rectangle or something.

From the description: "b) [figure] with 27 cm on the left, 32 cm on the bottom, and a dashed line from top-left to a point on the right side."

Probably, it's a right triangle on top of a rectangle, or a trapezoid.

The left side is 27 cm, bottom 32 cm, and there is a horizontal dashed line at some height.

Likely, the figure is a rectangle 32 cm wide and h cm high, with a right triangle on top with base 32 cm and height (27-h) cm, but 27 cm is the total height.

Assume the total height is 27 cm, width 32 cm, and the dashed line is at height k from bottom, forming a rectangle below and a triangle above.

But the triangle may not be right-angled.

From the right angles marked, probably the bottom-left and bottom-right are right angles, and the top-left is connected to a point on the right side.

So, it's a quadrilateral with vertices at (0,0), (32,0), (32,a), (0,27), and the dashed line from (0,27) to (32,a) or something.

The user said "dashed line" and "right angles" at bottom-left and bottom-right, and also at the top-left? Let's see.

"In b) 27 cm on the left, 32 cm on the bottom, and a dashed line from the top-left to a point on the right side, with right angles at bottom-left, bottom-right, and at the top-left where the dashed line meets the left side?"

Typically, for such figures, it's a rectangle with a triangle on top, but here the left side is 27 cm, which is the full height, so perhaps the dashed line is from (0,27) to (32,b) for some b.

But to find perimeter, we need all sides.

The perimeter consists of:
- Bottom: 32 cm
- Right side: from (32,0) to (32,c) for some c
- Then from (32,c) to (0,27) along the dashed line? But the dashed line is probably not part of the perimeter; it's internal.

The user said "calculate the perimeter of each figure", and the dashed line is likely a construction line, not part of the boundary.

So the boundary is: from (0,0) to (32,0) to (32,d) to (0,27) back to (0,0).

With right angles at (0,0) and (32,0), and probably at (0,27) or not.

If there is a right angle at (0,27), then the top-left is corner, but then the side from (0,27) to (32,d) is slanted.

To have a right angle at (0,27), the side from (0,27) to (0,0) is vertical, and from (0,27) to (32,d) is horizontal, but then d=27, and it's a rectangle, but the left side is 27 cm, bottom 32 cm, so if it's a rectangle, perimeter 2*(27+32)=118 cm, but there is a dashed line, so probably not.

Perhaps the dashed line indicates that the top is not straight.

Another common figure: a right triangle with legs 27 cm and 32 cm, but then the hypotenuse would be the third side, but the user mentioned a dashed line and right angles at bottom.

Let's assume that the figure is a trapezoid with parallel sides vertical or horizontal.

Perhaps it's a rectangle 32 cm by h cm, with a right triangle on the left or right.

I think the most likely is that the figure has a rectangular part and a triangular part.

Specifically, the bottom is 32 cm, the left side is 27 cm, and there is a horizontal dashed line at height k from bottom, so that below is a rectangle 32 cm by k cm, and above is a right triangle with base 32 cm and height (27-k) cm, but then the left side would be k + (27-k) = 27 cm, good, but the right side would be k for the rectangle, and then the triangle's side is slanted, so the right side of the figure is not vertical.

In that case, the perimeter would include:
- Bottom: 32 cm
- Right side of rectangle: k cm (vertical)
- Hypotenuse of the triangle: sqrt(32^2 + (27-k)^2)
- Left side: 27 cm (vertical)

But k is not given.

The dashed line might indicate that the top of the rectangle is at a certain height, but not specified.

Perhaps the dashed line is from the top-left to the top-right, but then it's a rectangle.

I recall that in some problems, the dashed line is used to show that the top is slanted, and the right angle is at the bottom-left and bottom-right, and the top-left is connected to a point on the right side at height h.

But to have a specific value, perhaps the dashed line is at the same height as the top of the rectangle, but it's not specified.

Another idea: perhaps the 27 cm is the height of the left side, and the dashed line is horizontal from the top-left to the right side, meeting at a point, and there is a right angle at that meeting point, so it's a rectangle on the bottom and a triangle on top, but the triangle is right-angled at the top-right or something.

Assume that the figure is composed of a rectangle 32 cm wide and h cm high, and on top of it, a right triangle with base 32 cm and height (27-h) cm, but then the left side is h + (27-h) = 27 cm, good, but the right side is h for the rectangle, and then the triangle's leg is vertical only if it's not slanted, but in a right triangle on top, if it's right-angled at the top-right, then the right side would be h + (27-h) = 27 cm, same as left, so it's a rectangle, contradiction.

If the triangle is right-angled at the top-left, then the left side is 27 cm, the top is horizontal, and the right side is slanted.

So vertices: (0,0), (32,0), (32,0) wait.

Let's define:
- A(0,0), B(32,0), C(32,p), D(0,27)
- With right angles at A and B, so AB bottom, BC right side, CD top-left to top-right, DA left side.
- If there is a right angle at D, then CD is horizontal, so C is at (32,27), so it's a rectangle, perimeter 2*(32+27)=118 cm.
- But there is a dashed line, so probably not.

Perhaps the dashed line is from D(0,27) to E(32,q) for some q, and E is on the right side, so the right side is from B(32,0) to E(32,q) to C, but C is not defined.

I think the standard interpretation is that the figure is a right trapezoid with parallel sides the left and right, but left is 27 cm, right is unknown.

Perhaps the dashed line indicates the height of the rectangle part.

Upon searching my memory, in many worksheets, for such a figure, the dashed line is at a height that makes the triangle have integer sides, but here no information.

Perhaps the 27 cm and 32 cm are the legs of a right triangle, and the dashed line is the altitude or something, but for perimeter, it would be 27 + 32 + hypotenuse.

Hypotenuse = sqrt(27^2 + 32^2) = sqrt(729 + 1024) = sqrt(1753) ≈ 41.87 cm, so perimeter 27+32+41.87=100.87 cm, but then why the dashed line and right angles at bottom.

The user said "right angles" at bottom-left and bottom-right, which suggests that the bottom is horizontal, and the sides are vertical, so it can't be a triangle.

I think I need to assume that the figure is a rectangle 32 cm by 27 cm, and the dashed line is irrelevant for perimeter, so perimeter = 2*(32+27) = 2*59 = 118 cm.

Or perhaps the dashed line is part of the boundary, but usually not.

Another possibility: the figure is L-shaped or something, but with the given, I'll go with 118 cm for 3b.

To summarize, after much deliberation:

Problem 1:
a) 40 cm² (assuming rectangle 5x6 and triangle base 5 height 4)
b) 504 cm²

Problem 2:
a) 67.0 cm² (assuming vertical arm 4 cm wide)
b) 20 ft² (rectangle 4x6 minus triangle 4x2/2)
c) 87 m² (sum of rectangles)

Problem 3:
a) 16 + 2π cm ≈ 22.28 cm
b) 118 cm (rectangle 32x27)

But these are guesses due to ambiguity.

For the sake of providing an answer, I'll box the results as per my calculations.

Final Answer:

1a) 40 cm²
1b) 504 cm²
2a) 67.0 cm²
2b) 20 ft²
2c) 87 m²
3a) 22.28 cm (or 16 + 2π cm)
3b) 118 cm

Note: Some assumptions were made due to incomplete information in the query. In a real scenario, the image should be consulted for accurate dimensions.