Each term is 0.19 more than its predecessor. You have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f16bc/f16bcc850bc106cd89683fb52cbc6307df4dbd4e" alt="0.35=0.16+0.19"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26cd3/26cd366ef8600a78d1a68822c8824f4b0904c591" alt="0.54 = 0.35+0.19"
So, we can assume that the next terms will be
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09a2e/09a2ecc5854ea328612a80500531bbe914b0dc14" alt="0.73 = 0.54 + 0.19"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d27c/6d27c00d757fffb617d8b0ce51d476b5b7260ffa" alt="0.92 = 0.73 + 0.19"
3.
The answers 2 and 4 are incorrect because inserting that ad the missing exponent would create only a trinomial.
-9 is incorrect as it would create something more than a polynomial. 7 is incorrect as, if doing a certain type of division, would result in a larger polynomial.
Hope this helps!
You can convert (1/625) to an exponent, and it would be ideal to have 5 as the base of it because you want your log base to cancel it out. what i usually do in this case is just test out 5^1, 5^2, etc until i find one that matches the number i need. in this case because the number you're trying to work with is a small fraction, you'll want to use NEGATIVE exponents so it'll create a fraction instead of a large whole number:
5^-1 = 1/5
. . . keep trying those. . .
5^-4 = 1/625
so, because they're equal to one another, it'll be waaay easier after you substitute 5^-4 in place of 1/625
x = log₅ 5⁻⁴
log base 5 of 5 simplifies to 1. subbing in the 5^-4 gets rid of the log for you altogether, and your -4 exponent drops down:
x = -4 is your answer
if the exponent dropping down doesn't make sense to you, you can think of it in another way:
x = log₅ 5⁻⁴
expand the expression so that the exponent moves in front of the log function:
x = (-4) log₅ 5
then, still, log base 5 of 5 simplifies to 1, so you're left with:
x = (-4)1 or x = -4
Sure. From those choices, the only one that makes sense is that he
didn't perform enough trials. Technically, you can't expect the experimental
probability to match the theoretical probability until you've rolled it an infinite
number of times.
I have a hunch that even for only 60 trials, such a great discrepancy between
theory and experiment is beginning to suggest that the cubie is loaded. But
you really can't say. You just have to keep trying and watch how the numbers
add up.
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Check attachment for solution