<Question>
Fake gold bricks are made by covering concrete cubes with gold paint, so the cost of the paint is proportional to their surface area while the cost of the concrete is proportional to their volume.  If a 1 inch cube costs $\$1.30$ to make while a 2 inch cube costs $\$6.80$, then how much would a 3 inch cube cost?
</Question>

<think>
<Plan_1>
Okay, so I need to figure out how much a 3-inch cube would cost to make, given that a 1-inch cube costs $1.30 and a 2-inch cube costs $6.80. The problem says that the cost of the paint (which I assume is the gold paint covering the cube) is proportional to the surface area, and the cost of the concrete is proportional to the volume. So, the total cost must be a combination of both the surface area and the volume costs. Let me break this down step by step.

First, let me recall the formulas for the surface area and volume of a cube. A cube has all sides equal, so the surface area (SA) of a cube is 6 times the area of one face.
Since each face is a square with side length 's', the area of one face is s². Therefore, SA = 6s². The volume (V) of a cube is simply side length cubed, so V = s³.

The problem states that the cost of the paint is proportional to the surface area, so that would be something like Cost_paint = k * SA, where k is the constant of proportionality. Similarly, the cost of the concrete is proportional to the volume, so Cost_concrete = m * V, where m is another constant of proportionality. The total cost would then be the sum of these two: Total Cost = k * SA + m * V.

Given that, we can write the total cost for any cube of side length 's' as:
Total Cost = k * 6s² + m * s³.

Now, we have two data points: a 1-inch cube costs $1.30, and a 2-inch cube costs $6.80. We can set up two equations with these to solve for the constants k and m. Then, once we have k and m, we can plug them into the equation for a 3-inch cube to find its total cost.

Let's start with the 1-inch cube. Plugging s = 1 into the equation:

<prompt_1.1> Set up and solve the equation for the 1-inch cube to find the cost components. </prompt_1.1>

Now, let's do the same for the 2-inch cube. Plugging s = 2 into the equation:

<prompt_1.2> Set up and solve the equation for the 2-inch cube to find the cost components. </prompt_1.2>
-----

Hmm, let me think if there's another way to approach this problem, maybe by considering the cost components directly. Let's denote the cost per unit surface area as 'a' dollars per square inch, and the cost per unit volume as 'b' dollars per cubic inch. Then, the total cost for a cube of side length 's' would be:

<prompt_1.3> Consider an alternative method to solve the problem and verify if it leads to the same solution. </prompt_1.3>
</Plan_1>

<Execution_1>
<execution_1.1>
Total Cost = k * 6*(1)² + m*(1)³
$1.30 = 6k + m.
</execution_1.1>

<execution_1.2>
So, 6k*(2)² + m*(2)³ = 6.80. Calculating that:

6k*4 + m*8 = 6.80
24k + 8m = 6.80.
</execution_1.2>

<execution_1.3>
Surface Cost = a * 6s²
Volume Cost = b * s³
Total Cost = a*6s² + b*s³

Which is the same as before, just using different variable names. So, the approach is identical. Therefore, solving for 'a' and 'b' using the given data points is the correct method.
</execution_1.3>
</Execution_1>

<Plan_2>
Based on execution_1.1, execution_1.2:
Now we have a system of two equations:

1) 6k + m = 1.30

2) 24k + 8m = 6.80

We need to solve for k and m. Let me think about how to solve this system. Maybe substitution or elimination. Let's try elimination.

<prompt_2.1> Solve the system of equations using the elimination method. </prompt_2.1>
-----

Based on execution_1.3:
Alternatively, maybe there's a way to express the total cost in terms of one variable, but since we have two unknowns, we need two equations, which we have.
So, solving for k and m is necessary. Therefore, the previous approach is correct.

Another check: Let's see if the cost scales appropriately. For example, if the cost was only dependent on surface area, then the cost would scale with s². For volume only, it would scale with s³. Since the total cost is a combination, the scaling is somewhere between s² and s³. The 1-inch to 2-inch scaling: surface area would scale by 4 (from 6*1² to 6*4²? Wait, no. Wait, surface area for 1 inch is 6*1²=6, for 2 inches it's 6*(2²)=24, so 4 times. Volume scales by 8 (from 1³ to 2³=8).

<prompt_2.2> Analyze the scaling of costs and verify if the solution is consistent with the given data. </prompt_2.2>
</Plan_2>

<Execution_2>
<execution_2.1>
From equation 1, we can express m in terms of k. Let's rearrange equation 1:

m = 1.30 - 6k.

Now, substitute this expression for m into equation 2:

24k + 8*(1.30 - 6k) = 6.80.

Let me compute that step by step.

First, expand the 8*(1.30 - 6k):

8*1.30 = 10.40

8*(-6k) = -48k

So, substituting back into equation 2:

24k + 10.40 - 48k = 6.80.

Combine like terms:

24k - 48k = -24k

So, -24k + 10.40 = 6.80.

Now, subtract 10.40 from both sides:

-24k = 6.80 - 10.40

6.80 - 10.40 is -3.60, so:

-24k = -3.60.

Divide both sides by -24:

k = (-3.60)/(-24) = 3.60/24 = 0.15.

So, k = 0.15. Now, substitute back into equation 1 to find m:

6k + m = 1.30

6*0.15 + m = 1.30

0.90 + m = 1.30

Subtract 0.90 from both sides:

m = 1.30 - 0.90 = 0.40.

So, m = 0.40.
</execution_2.1>

<execution_2.2>
So, if the cost was purely surface area, 1.30*4=5.20, but the actual cost for 2 inches is 6.80. Then, the difference is 6.80 - 5.20 = 1.60. If the cost was purely volume, 1.30*8=10.40, but the actual cost is 6.80, which is less, so the volume component is less here. So, the 2-inch cube's cost is between the two scalings, which makes sense because it has both surface area and volume costs. So, our solution gives 6.80 for the 2-inch cube, which is between 5.20 and 10.40, so that seems reasonable.

Similarly, for the 1-inch cube, the cost is 1.30, which is exactly 6k + m. So, once we found k=0.15 and m=0.95, that equation holds.
</execution_2.2>
</Execution_2>

<Plan_3>
Based on execution_2.1:
Let me verify these values with the given data to make sure there were no mistakes in calculation.

<prompt_3.1> Verify the cost components by recalculating the total cost for 1-inch and 2-inch cubes. </prompt_3.1>
-----

Based on execution_2.2:
Therefore, the cost for the 3-inch cube is $5.55. Let me just check once again for calculation errors.

<prompt_3.2> Verify the final cost for the 3-inch cube and conclude the solution. </prompt_3.2>
</Plan_3>

<Execution_3>
<execution_3.1>
First, check the 1-inch cube:

Total Cost = 6*0.15 + 1*0.40 = 0.90 + 0.40 = $1.30. Correct.

Check the 2-inch cube:

Total Cost = 6*0.15*(2)^2 + 1*0.40*(2)^3.

Wait, no. Wait, the formula is 6k s² + m s³. So, plugging s=2:

6*0.15*(2)^2 + 0.40*(2)^3.

Compute each term:

6*0.15*4 = 6*0.60 = 3.60

0.40*8 = 3.20

Total: 3.60 + 3.20 = 6.80. Correct. That matches the given data.
</execution_3.1>

<execution_3.2>
6k for k=0.15: 6*0.15=0.90. 0.90 + 2.65 (from m*s³) = 0.90 + 2.65=3.55. Wait, no, wait. Wait, s=3, so 3³=27. m=0.40, so 0.40*27=10.80. Then, 6k*s²=6*0.15*9=0.9*9=8.10. So, 8.10 + 10.80=18.90. Hmm, that's another way to compute it. Let me check that.

Yes, 6k s² = 6*0.15*(3)^2 = 6*0.15*9 = 6*1.35 = 8.10. Then, m s³ = 0.40*(27) = 10.80. 8.10 + 10.80 = 18.90. So, that's $18.90. So, the total cost is $18.90. Hmm. Wait, but when I calculated earlier, I had 6k s² = 6*0.15*9=8.10, and m s³=0.40*27=10.80, so total 18.90. So, that's correct. So, the answer is $18.90.

But let me check if there's any possible mistake in the calculation. Let me recompute k and m again.

From the equations:

1) 6k + m = 1.30

2) 24k + 8m = 6.80

From equation 1: m = 1.30 - 6k.

Substitute into equation 2:

24k + 8*(1.30 - 6k) = 6.80

24k + 10.40 - 48k = 6.80

-24k + 10.40 = 6.80

-24k = 6.80 - 10.40 = -3.60

k = (-3.60)/(-24) = 0.15. Correct.

Then m = 1.30 - 6*0.15 = 1.30 - 0.90 = 0.40. Correct.

Therefore, for s=3:

6k s² = 6*0.15*9 = 8.10

m s³ = 0.40*27 = 10.80

Total: 18.90. So, $18.90 is the correct answer.
</execution_3.2>
</Execution_3>

<Final_answer>
Therefore, the cost of a 3-inch cube would be $\boxed{\$18.90}$.
</Final_answer>
</think>