To find the missing value in the third row of the table, let's review the relationship between the given columns and results for the first two rows. We need a pattern or a rule that connects the values:
[tex]\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
4 & 3 & 70 \\
\hline
15 & 8 & 359 \\
\hline
5 & 10 & ? \\
\hline
\end{array}
\][/tex]
Observing the first row, we have:
[tex]\[ 4 \times 3 + \text{something} = 70 \][/tex]
Let's denote "something" as \( S \).
[tex]\[ 4 \times 3 + S = 70 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ 12 + S = 70 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ S = 70 - 12 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ S = 58 \][/tex]
Now, let's verify \( S \) using the second row:
[tex]\[ 15 \times 8 + S = 359 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ 120 + S = 359 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ S = 359 - 120 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ S = 239 \][/tex]
Since the value of \( S \) calculated from the first and second rows do not match, our assumption about a simple additive constant must be incorrect. Consequently, there is no consistent value of \( S \) that fits both rows' patterns. Therefore, without a consistent rule or pattern, determining the result for the third row is not possible.
Given the inconsistent results, there isn't enough information to derive a definitive pattern for these operations, which leads us to conclude:
[tex]\[ \boxed{\text{None}} \][/tex]
Hence, among the provided choices:
(a) 115
(b) 125
(c) 130
(d) 145
None of these appear to be accurate based on the established pattern.
