Get comprehensive solutions to your questions with the help of IDNLearn.com's experts. Get accurate and detailed answers to your questions from our dedicated community members who are always ready to help.
Sagot :
Let's analyze Audrey's work step by step to evaluate the correctness of each step in the simplification process.
The original expression is:
[tex]\[ -\frac{3}{3}\left|6x-\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ \left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) + \left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \][/tex]
Analysis:
- The expression [tex]\(\left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) \)[/tex] simplifies to [tex]\( 4k \)[/tex]. This part appears to follow the simplification correctly, where:
[tex]\[ \frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k = 4k \][/tex]
- The second part of the expression [tex]\(\left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \)[/tex] is unclear and does not make sense mathematically. The use of a comma instead of an arithmetic operation indicates an error.
- Also, the initial expression given was [tex]\(-\frac{3}{3}\left|6x - \frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex] which does not align with Step 1.
Conclusion: Step 1 is incorrect.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ -4k +\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
Analysis:
- On the right-hand side, [tex]\(\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ -\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2} = 1 \][/tex]
- Because we are dealing with an absolute value, [tex]\(|1| = 1\)[/tex].
- However, evaluating this entire step isn't directly derivable from Step 1's mistake.
Conclusion: Step 2 is incorrect.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Analysis:
- This step follows correctly from the accurate simplification from the product and the absolute value seen in the analysis of Step 2, but not from Audrey's initial Step 2 mistake.
[tex]\[ -4k + \left| 1 \right| = -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Conclusion: Step 3 is correct in its simplified forms.
### Step 4:
[tex]\[ -3t \][/tex]
Analysis:
- Transitioning to a completely different variable [tex]\( t \)[/tex] without any prior introduction or context indicates an issue. Additionally, the term [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex] bears no logical tie to the previous simplification step.
- There is no computation step or logical reasoning that supports changing from [tex]\(-4k + 1\)[/tex] to [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex].
Conclusion: Step 4 is incorrect.
To summarize:
- Step 1 is incorrect.
- Step 2 is incorrect.
- Step 3 is correct.
- Step 4 is incorrect.
The review of Audrey's simplification process shows that the overall steps have multiple conceptual and arithmetic errors except Step 3 which is accurate on its own.
The original expression is:
[tex]\[ -\frac{3}{3}\left|6x-\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ \left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) + \left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \][/tex]
Analysis:
- The expression [tex]\(\left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) \)[/tex] simplifies to [tex]\( 4k \)[/tex]. This part appears to follow the simplification correctly, where:
[tex]\[ \frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k = 4k \][/tex]
- The second part of the expression [tex]\(\left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \)[/tex] is unclear and does not make sense mathematically. The use of a comma instead of an arithmetic operation indicates an error.
- Also, the initial expression given was [tex]\(-\frac{3}{3}\left|6x - \frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex] which does not align with Step 1.
Conclusion: Step 1 is incorrect.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ -4k +\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
Analysis:
- On the right-hand side, [tex]\(\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ -\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2} = 1 \][/tex]
- Because we are dealing with an absolute value, [tex]\(|1| = 1\)[/tex].
- However, evaluating this entire step isn't directly derivable from Step 1's mistake.
Conclusion: Step 2 is incorrect.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Analysis:
- This step follows correctly from the accurate simplification from the product and the absolute value seen in the analysis of Step 2, but not from Audrey's initial Step 2 mistake.
[tex]\[ -4k + \left| 1 \right| = -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Conclusion: Step 3 is correct in its simplified forms.
### Step 4:
[tex]\[ -3t \][/tex]
Analysis:
- Transitioning to a completely different variable [tex]\( t \)[/tex] without any prior introduction or context indicates an issue. Additionally, the term [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex] bears no logical tie to the previous simplification step.
- There is no computation step or logical reasoning that supports changing from [tex]\(-4k + 1\)[/tex] to [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex].
Conclusion: Step 4 is incorrect.
To summarize:
- Step 1 is incorrect.
- Step 2 is incorrect.
- Step 3 is correct.
- Step 4 is incorrect.
The review of Audrey's simplification process shows that the overall steps have multiple conceptual and arithmetic errors except Step 3 which is accurate on its own.
Your participation means a lot to us. Keep sharing information and solutions. This community grows thanks to the amazing contributions from members like you. For dependable answers, trust IDNLearn.com. Thank you for visiting, and we look forward to assisting you again.