The correct option is option d
do u like bts
9514 1404 393
Answer:
-3 ≤ x ≤ 19/3
Step-by-step explanation:
This inequality can be resolved to a compound inequality:
-7 ≤ (3x -5)/2 ≤ 7
Multiply all parts by 2.
-14 ≤ 3x -5 ≤ 14
Add 5 to all parts.
-9 ≤ 3x ≤ 19
Divide all parts by 3.
-3 ≤ x ≤ 19/3
_____
<em>Additional comment</em>
If you subtract 7 from both sides of the given inequality, it becomes ...
|(3x -5)/2| -7 ≤ 0
Then you're looking for the values of x that bound the region where the graph is below the x-axis. Those are shown in the attachment. For graphing purposes, I find this comparison to zero works well.
__
For an algebraic solution, I like the compound inequality method shown above. That only works well when the inequality is of the form ...
|f(x)| < (some number) . . . . or ≤
If the inequality symbol points away from the absolute value expression, or if the (some number) expression involves the variable, then it is probably better to write the inequality in two parts with appropriate domain specifications:
|f(x)| > g(x) ⇒ f(x) > g(x) for f(x) > 0; or -f(x) > g(x) for f(x) < 0
Any solutions to these inequalities must respect their domains.
Answer:
Undefined
Step-by-step explanation:
No multiplicative inverse exists for 0
First you make the mixed numbers/fractions into improper fractions. After that, you must find the common denominator, the LCM of 9 and 6 (for the 2nd problem). After that, if you can, simplify the fraction to lowest terms, which also includes making it a mixed number/fraction.
I hope this helps! :)
Answer:
yes this is a function
Step-by-step explanation:
simple method to find if something is a function
if you can draw a vertical line at any point on the graph and get two intersections, it is not a function