+4 In this week's writing problem, you'll try two different methods of measuring an area and compare them. Cut out a shape from a piece of graph paper. You can cut out any shape you like. Measure its area using the grid on the graph paper itself. You may also use a ruler to help you if you like. Briefly explain what you did. Then, measure the area using a kitchen scale. Briefly explain how you made the measurement. What is your uncertainty in each measurement? Which measurement has greater uncertainty? Explain how you came up with your uncertainties. Before digital methods were common, engineers often measured areas of unusual shapes using a handheld tool called a planimeter. (You are welcome to search for and learn how this tool worked, but you don't need to include it in your write up.) Planimeter manufacturers claimed a relative error of about 0.2% for their devices. How do your measurements compare to those of a planimeter?
+2668 I think you have to weigh the paper, although a kitchen scale wouldn't be so precise.
You would weigh the total paper and note its area
Then you would note the weight of the shape and calculate its area.
+118687 thanks Builderboi.
That makes some sense. 
I suppose it could be an interesting assignement.
Something heavier than paper, maybe some reasonably think cardboard would give less error.
+2511 I think you have to weigh the paper, although a kitchen scale wouldn't be so precise. ...
BuilderBoi, are you nibbling on pot-laced candy or sipping on mushroom tea?
There’s nothing like a few psychotropic chemicals to help you in expanding your mind for thinking outside of the box.
Maybe the teacher used a previous question as a template and inadvertently left the kitchen scale in the current assignment. Or the teacher intentionally listed the use of a kitchen scale to see which students are paying attention.
Or... the teacher may have been nibbling and sipping...
Even without the kitchen scale blunder, this assignment is very poorly thought-out and poorly written with missing commas and superfluous commas, along with disjointed instructions connected with repetition; and meandering comments on measurement errors, which are not defined, even as a reference to a class lecture.
The teacher rambles on about Plainameters, referring to them as tools used prior to the digital era when, in fact, both mechanical and digital versions are still used. (Cabinet and furniture makers use them all the time.)
The students are welcome to search for and learn how this tool worked, but you don't need to include it in your write up. Why include what you don’t need to do in the main assignment? A better option is to include it as a footnote for optional research with a reference to its 0.2% relative error in the main instruction.
This is a math-based writing assignment from a teacher who does not know how to write.
I wonder if the teacher used the kitchen scale to distract the readers from the incompetent assignment presentation.
Everyone notices the kitchen scale instead of the crappy presentation and atrocious writing. The teacher may have thought of this while nibbling on pot-laced candy and sipping on mushroom tea.
GA
--. .-
