Time zones worksheet comparing London and Beijing times.

Let's solve the problem step by step.

Problem:

In the winter, the time in Beijing, China is 1 hour later than that in London. We are given a table with times in either London or Beijing and need to complete the missing times based on this 1-hour difference.

---

Key Rule:

- Beijing = London + 1 hour
- So, if you know the time in London, add 1 hour to get Beijing time.
- If you know the time in Beijing, subtract 1 hour to get London time.

We'll go through each row and fill in the missing time accordingly.

---

Given Table:

| Time in London | Time in Beijing |
|----------------|-----------------|
| 4 o'clock | |
| 1:00 | |
| 7 o'clock | 9 o'clock |
| | 10:00 |
| | 4:00 |
| Half past 8 | Quarter past 12 |
| 8:30 | |
| 2:45 | |
| | 11:49 |
| Quarter to 3 | 1:08 |
| 3:50 | |

Now let’s fill in the blanks one by one.

---

Row 1:

- London: 4 o'clock → Beijing: 4 + 1 = 5 o'clock

✔ Beijing: 5 o'clock

---

Row 2:

- London: 1:00 → Beijing: 1:00 + 1 = 2:00

✔ Beijing: 2:00

---

Row 3:

- London: 7 o'clock
- Beijing: 9 o'clock

Check: 7 + 1 = 8 → but Beijing says 9 → That’s 2 hours ahead, not 1.

Wait! This contradicts the rule.

But the problem says: "In the winter, the time in Beijing is 1 hour later than that in London."

So if London is 7:00, Beijing should be 8:00 — not 9:00.

But here it shows 9:00. That suggests something is off.

Wait — maybe it's a typo? Or perhaps I'm misreading?

Let me double-check: Is it possible that the time difference is 2 hours?

No — the instruction clearly says: "Beijing is 1 hour later than London" in winter.

So this entry must be incorrect — unless we're meant to ignore it or correct it?

But looking at the table, it seems like some entries are already filled in, so likely they are correct and we have to work around them.

Wait — perhaps I made a mistake.

Let’s re-express the rule:

> Beijing is 1 hour later than London → Beijing = London + 1 hour

So if Beijing is 9:00, then London must be 8:00

But the table says London is 7:00, Beijing is 9:00 → that’s 2 hours apart.

That’s inconsistent.

But since the problem states Beijing is 1 hour ahead, this entry must be wrong.

Wait — unless the problem has a typo?

Alternatively, maybe the table is correct and the rule is wrong?

No — the problem says: “In the winter the time in Beijing... is 1 hour later than that in London.” So that’s the rule.

Therefore, any discrepancy must be due to error in interpretation.

Wait — could it be that the time in London is 7:00, and Beijing is 8:00? But the table says 9:00.

So unless the table is wrong, or we’re misunderstanding.

But since this is an exercise, perhaps the given data is consistent, and the rule is correct, so maybe I should check whether the given values follow the rule.

Let’s look at other entries.

Row 4:

- Beijing: 10:00 → London: 10:00 - 1 = 9:00

✔ London: 9:00

---

Row 5:

- Beijing: 4:00 → London: 4:00 - 1 = 3:00

✔ London: 3:00

---

Row 6:

- London: Half past 8 → 8:30
- Beijing: Quarter past 12 → 12:15

Now check: 8:30 + 1 = 9:30 → but Beijing is 12:15 → huge difference!

This can't be right.

Wait — this is impossible.

If London is 8:30, Beijing should be 9:30.

But here it says Beijing is 12:15 — that’s 3 hours and 45 minutes ahead.

So contradiction again.

But the problem says only 1 hour difference.

So either:
- The problem statement is wrong
- The table is wrong
- Or I’m misinterpreting something

Wait — let’s look at Row 10:
- London: Quarter to 3 → 2:45
- Beijing: 1:08

2:45 + 1 = 3:45 → but Beijing is 1:08 → not matching.

And Row 11:
- London: 3:50 → Beijing should be 4:50
- But Beijing is blank → we can fill it as 4:50

But earlier rows don’t make sense.

Wait — perhaps the time difference is NOT 1 hour?

But the problem says: “In the winter the time in Beijing, China is 1 hour later than that in London.”

So that should be true.

But many of the given entries contradict this.

Unless...

Wait — perhaps the table has both London and Beijing times, and we are to use the 1-hour rule to fill in the blanks, and some entries are already correct, others are not?

But if Beijing is 1 hour ahead, then:

- When London is 7:00, Beijing must be 8:00
- But table says Beijing is 9:00 → so that’s wrong
- Similarly, when London is 8:30, Beijing should be 9:30, but table says 12:15 → also wrong

So unless the given values are incorrect, or the rule is different, there’s a problem.

Wait — perhaps I made a mistake in reading the table.

Let me re-read the table carefully.

Here’s the table again:

| Time in London | Time in Beijing |
|----------------|-----------------|
| 4 o'clock | |
| 1:00 | |
| 7 o'clock | 9 o'clock |
| | 10:00 |
| | 4:00 |
| Half past 8 | Quarter past 12 |
| 8:30 | |
| 2:45 | |
| | 11:49 |
| Quarter to 3 | 1:08 |
| 3:50 | |

Now, let’s consider Row 10:
- London: Quarter to 3 → 2:45
- Beijing: 1:08

2:45 + 1 = 3:45 → but Beijing is 1:08 → not matching

But 1:08 is before 2:45 — so Beijing is behind? That can't be.

Unless the time difference is negative?

But the problem says Beijing is 1 hour later.

So Beijing should be ahead.

But here, Beijing is 1:08 while London is 2:45 → Beijing is behind by 1 hour 37 minutes.

Not possible.

Similarly, Row 6:
- London: 8:30
- Beijing: 12:15 → that’s 3h 45m ahead → too much.

Only Row 4 and Row 5 make sense:
- Beijing 10:00 → London 9:00 (diff +1)
- Beijing 4:00 → London 3:00 (diff +1)

Also, Row 3: London 7:00 → Beijing should be 8:00, but it says 9:00 → still off by 1 hour.

So maybe the rule is actually 2 hours?

But the problem says 1 hour.

Wait — perhaps the problem is that the time difference is 1 hour, but daylight saving or something changes it?

But the problem specifies “in the winter”.

Actually, real-world fact: In winter, Beijing is 8 hours ahead of GMT, and London is 0 hours (GMT), so Beijing is 8 hours ahead, not 1.

But the problem says “1 hour later” — which is incorrect in reality.

So this is a fictional or simplified scenario for the exercise.

So we must accept the rule given: Beijing is 1 hour later than London.

So we will apply that strictly.

Now, let’s assume that all given entries are correct, and see if we can find a pattern.

But that leads to contradictions.

Alternative idea: Perhaps the table has mixed-up rows or typo, but we are to fill in the blanks using the 1-hour rule, ignoring inconsistencies.

But that doesn’t make sense.

Wait — perhaps the entries in the table are not all correct, but we are to use the rule to complete the blanks, assuming the rule is correct.

So let’s do that.

We’ll use:

> Beijing = London + 1 hour

or

> London = Beijing - 1 hour

Now go row by row.

---

Row 1:

- London: 4 o'clock → Beijing: 5 o'clock ✔

---

Row 2:

- London: 1:00 → Beijing: 2:00 ✔

---

Row 3:

- London: 7 o'clock → Beijing: 8 o'clock
But table says 9 o'clock → inconsistent

But since the problem says the rule is 1 hour, we ignore the given value and use the rule.

So Beijing should be 8 o'clock

But the table says 9 o'clock — so either it’s a typo, or we are to override it.

But the instruction is to complete the table, so probably the given values are correct, and the rule is to be applied.

But they conflict.

Wait — perhaps the given values are correct, and the rule is not always followed?

But the problem says: “In the winter the time in Beijing... is 1 hour later than that in London.” So it should be consistent.

Maybe the table is correct, and the rule is wrong?

But that would defeat the purpose.

Another possibility: The time difference is 1 hour, but the times are written in different formats?

No.

Wait — let’s look at Row 6:
- London: Half past 8 → 8:30
- Beijing: Quarter past 12 → 12:15

Difference: 12:15 - 8:30 = 3h 45m → not 1 hour.

Impossible.

But Row 10:
- London: Quarter to 3 → 2:45
- Beijing: 1:08

1:08 is before 2:45 — so Beijing is behind.

But Beijing should be ahead.

So this is not possible.

Unless the time zones are reversed?

But the problem says Beijing is 1 hour later.

So Beijing is ahead.

Thus, the given values in the table must be incorrect.

But that can’t be — it’s an exercise.

Wait — perhaps I misread the table.

Let me recheck Row 10:

> Quarter to 3 → 2:45

> Beijing: 1:08

But 1:08 is 1 hour 37 minutes before 2:45 — so Beijing is behind.

But Beijing should be ahead.

So this is impossible.

Unless the time in Beijing is 1:08 AM, and London is 2:45 AM — still, Beijing is behind.

So no.

Perhaps the time difference is 1 hour, but the table has errors, and we are to apply the rule to fill in the blanks, regardless.

So let’s proceed with that.

We’ll use the rule: Beijing = London + 1 hour

---

Now, let’s fill in each row:

#### Row 1:
- London: 4 o'clock → Beijing: 5 o'clock

#### Row 2:
- London: 1:00 → Beijing: 2:00

#### Row 3:
- London: 7 o'clock → Beijing: 8 o'clock (but table says 9 — ignore)

#### Row 4:
- Beijing: 10:00 → London: 10:00 - 1 = 9:00

#### Row 5:
- Beijing: 4:00 → London: 4:00 - 1 = 3:00

#### Row 6:
- London: Half past 8 → 8:30
- Beijing: Quarter past 12 → 12:15 → but this should be 9:30 → inconsistency

But if we trust the rule, then:
- London: 8:30 → Beijing: 9:30

But table says 12:15 — so either typo or we use rule.

Since the problem says “complete the following”, and gives some values, likely the given values are correct, so perhaps the rule is not always applied.

But that doesn’t make sense.

Wait — another idea: Perhaps the time difference is 1 hour, but the times are in different days?

For example, if London is 8:30 PM, Beijing is 9:30 PM — same day.

But if London is 8:30 AM, Beijing is 9:30 AM.

But 12:15 is not 9:30.

No.

Wait — Quarter past 12 is 12:15 — could it be 12:15 AM and London is 8:30 PM? No, that’s 3.5 hours back.

Not possible.

So likely, there is a typo in the table.

But since this is a common type of exercise, let’s assume that the given values are correct, and the rule is to be applied, so we will fill in the blanks using the rule, and only the given values are fixed.

So let’s treat the filled-in cells as correct, and fill in the blanks accordingly.

Let’s list the rows with known values.

---

Row 3:

- London: 7:00
- Beijing: 9:00

→ Difference: 2 hours → but problem says 1 hour.

So contradiction.

Unless the problem has a typo.

But let’s suppose that the rule is 2 hours instead of 1.

Then it would make sense.

But the problem says 1 hour.

Alternatively, perhaps the time difference is 1 hour, but the table is in 24-hour format or something.

Wait — let’s try to see if any pair makes sense.

Look at Row 10:
- London: Quarter to 3 → 2:45
- Beijing: 1:08

1:08 is 1 hour 37 minutes before 2:45 — so Beijing is behind.

But should be ahead.

No.

Look at Row 11:
- London: 3:50
- Beijing: ? → should be 4:50

So we can fill that.

Similarly, Row 7:
- London: 8:30 → Beijing: 9:30

But table says Beijing is Quarter past 12 → 12:15 — which is not 9:30.

So likely, the given values in the table are not all correct, or there is a mistake.

But let’s look at Row 6:
- London: Half past 8 → 8:30
- Beijing: Quarter past 12 → 12:15

12:15 is 3h 45m after 8:30 — not 1 hour.

But 12:15 - 8:30 = 3h 45m — not 1 hour.

So no.

Wait — what if the time in Beijing is 1:08, and London is 2:45, then Beijing is behind by 1h 37m — not 1 hour ahead.

So impossible.

Unless the time difference is 1 hour, but the table has a mix of AM/PM.

For example, if London is 2:45 PM, Beijing is 1:08 AM next day? No, that’s not 1 hour.

1:08 AM is 13 hours before 2:45 PM.

No.

So the only logical conclusion is that the given values in the table are intended to be correct, and we are to use the 1-hour rule to fill in the blanks, even if some entries seem inconsistent.

But that can't be.

Perhaps the rule is that Beijing is 1 hour later, so we use that to fill in the blanks, and ignore any given values that are inconsistent.

But then why give them?

Another idea: Maybe the times are not in the same day, but that doesn't help.

Let’s try to find a consistent set.

Suppose we accept that Beijing is 1 hour ahead.

Then:

- If London is 4:00 → Beijing: 5:00
- London 1:00 → Beijing: 2:00
- London 7:00 → Beijing: 8:00
- Beijing 10:00 → London: 9:00
- Beijing 4:00 → London: 3:00
- London 8:30 → Beijing: 9:30
- London 2:45 → Beijing: 3:45
- Beijing 11:49 → London: 10:49
- London 2:45 → Beijing: 3:45
- London quarter to 3 = 2:45 → Beijing: 3:45
- But table says Beijing: 1:08 — not 3:45

So still inconsistent.

Wait — Row 10 says:
- London: Quarter to 3 → 2:45
- Beijing: 1:08

But 1:08 is not 3:45.

Unless it's a typo and it should be 3:08 or something.

Or perhaps it's 1:08 AM, and London is 2:45 AM — still not 1 hour.

No.

Perhaps the time difference is 1 hour, but the table has a typo, and we should ignore the given values and just use the rule.

But then why give some values?

Let’s assume that the given values are correct, and the rule is to be applied, so we fill in the blanks using the rule.

So for each row, if one is given, we calculate the other.

But if both are given, they must agree.

Let’s check which rows have both given.

- Row 3: London 7:00, Beijing 9:00 → difference 2 hours → not 1 → invalid
- Row 6: London 8:30, Beijing 12:15 → difference 3h 45m → invalid
- Row 10: London 2:45, Beijing 1:08 → difference -1h 37m → invalid
- Row 11: London 3:50, Beijing ? → can be filled
- Row 1: London 4:00, Beijing ? → can be filled
- etc.

So only some rows are consistent.

Perhaps the intended solution is to use the 1-hour rule regardless of the given values.

So let’s do that.

We'll use: Beijing = London + 1 hour

Fill in the blanks.

Final Answer:

| Time in London | Time in Beijing |
|----------------|-----------------|
| 4 o'clock | 5 o'clock |
| 1:00 | 2:00 |
| 7 o'clock | 8 o'clock |
| 9:00 | 10:00 |
| 3:00 | 4:00 |
| Half past 8 | 9:30 |
| 8:30 | 9:30 |
| 2:45 | 3:45 |
| 10:49 | 11:49 |
| Quarter to 3 | 3:45 |
| 3:50 | 4:50 |

Explanation:

- For empty cells, we used the rule: Beijing = London + 1 hour
- For cells where Beijing is given, we calculated London = Beijing - 1 hour
- Even though some given values like "9 o'clock" for Beijing when London is 7:00 are inconsistent, we assume they are typos or we are to ignore them and use the rule.

But in reality, the table has several inconsistencies.

However, for the purpose of this exercise, we assume the rule is correct, and fill in the blanks accordingly.

So the completed table is as above.

But let’s write it properly.

Completed Table:

| Time in London | Time in Beijing |
|----------------|-----------------|
| 4 o'clock | 5 o'clock |
| 1:00 | 2:00 |
| 7 o'clock | 8 o'clock |
| 9:00 | 10:00 |
| 3:00 | 4:00 |
| Half past 8 | 9:30 |
| 8:30 | 9:30 |
| 2:45 | 3:45 |
| 10:49 | 11:49 |
| Quarter to 3 | 3:45 |
| 3:50 | 4:50 |

Note: "Half past 8" = 8:30, "Quarter past 12" = 12:15 — but we replaced it with 9:30, so the given "Quarter past 12" is likely a typo.

Similarly, "Quarter to 3" = 2:45, so Beijing should be 3:45, not 1:08.

So the given values in those rows are incorrect.

Therefore, the correct completion is as above.

Final Answer:

The completed table uses the rule that Beijing is 1 hour ahead of London. Therefore:

- When London is 4:00, Beijing is 5:00
- When London is 1:00, Beijing is 2:00
- When London is 7:00, Beijing is 8:00
- When Beijing is 10:00, London is 9:00
- When Beijing is 4:00, London is 3:00
- When London is 8:30, Beijing is 9:30
- When London is 2:45, Beijing is 3:45
- When Beijing is 11:49, London is 10:49
- When London is 2:45, Beijing is 3:45
- When London is 3:50, Beijing is 4:50

Even though some given values in the table (like Beijing being 9:00 when London is 7:00) are inconsistent with the 1-hour rule, we apply the rule to fill in the blanks.

So the final answer is the table with the values above.