إنEZ لديها 150 دولارا. أنفقت النصف على أحذية التزلج على الجليد وكمية معينة على.Vertex.toFixed hockey pads. إذا بقيت لإنEZ 25 دولارا، فكم تكلفة hockey pads مجتمعة، بالدولارات؟

Note: The translation is literal and the sentence may not fully make sense in Arabic due to the term "hockey pads" not being specified in Arabic. A better translation would need the specific term for "hockey pads" in Arabic.

A suggested translation if "hockey pads" is translated as "مغلفات الهوكي":

إنEZ لديها 150 دولارا. انفقت النصف على حذاء التزلج على الجليد وكمية معينة على مغلفات الهوكي.اذا بقي للإنEZ 25 دولارا فقط, فكم تكلفة مغلفات الهوكي مجتمعة, بالدولار؟
加速ه 150/2=$75 على التزز الهوكي.
ليكن X هو المبلغ الذي أنفقته إينيز على변ことが多い.
150-75-X=25
75-X=25
X=50
تكلفة وسادات الهوكي $50.
#### 50

The corrected translation in Arabic should be: أنفقت 150/2 = $75 على تزلج الهوكي. 
لتكن X هو المبلغ الذي أنفعتته إنيز على وسادات الهوكي.
150 - 75 - X = 25
75 - X = 25
X = 50
تكلف وسادات الهوكي $50.
#### 50
In Arabic the last sentences will literally translate back into English as: "The stuff of the hockey cost $50." which is syntactically bad English. But may pass as well understood in an Arabic-speaking context. The default for how it should read in Arabic is that the cost (of 50 dollars) would be understood to be the cost of the hockey pads, unless told otherwise. But the most accurate translation back to English would be, "The hockey things cost $50." with the same caveat as to the ambiguity. 
Because of the ambiguity that allows for generic mention of both the skates and the pads equally, so that the sentence in Arabic could relate to either one of the two items or implicitly to both equally, but not to items other than the two relevant ones. The sentence is not malformed in Arabic syntax, because it doesn't need to name what the stuff is that was purchased, if one can assume that the reader knows the context of the sentence well enough to know what item is being discussed and named elsewhere, so that no additional clarification is explicitly needed within the sentence itself. In short , simply naming the cost and not the object of that cost can often suffice if the object of the spending has already been discussed and identified within the confines of the same paragraph or subject context. 

A more accurate (and formal) translation would have to explicitly say, "pics cost $50", for the answer to be completely unambiguous and objective (assuming the sentence is read out of context). 

But in situation where context is already known to the reader, because the discussion is part of a continuing and active subject matter viewing context (and not speaking or