Vance used the associative property to write (4.5m+7/8)-9 as the equivalent expression 4.5(7/8-9). Did Vance apply the associati
ve property correctly? Why or why not? Yes, the terms with variables should be written first. Yes, the terms can be regrouped and still be equivalent. No, the order of the terms should have been changed.
No, the addition symbol was dropped in the second expression
Answer: the fourth choice: No, the addition symbol was dropped in the second expression
Step-by-step explanation:
The right operation is: (4.5m + 7/8) - 9 = 4.5m + (7/8 - 9), this is you have to keep the + operator, since you are just grouping the terms in an alternate form.
Answer: the fourth choice: <span>No, the addition symbol was dropped in the second expression
Justification:
1) The right operation is: </span><span>(4.5m + 7/8) - 9 </span><span>= 4.5m + (7/8 - 9), this is you have to keep the + operator, since you are just grouping the terms in an alternate form.
2) Droping the + operator leads incorrectly to the multiplication of the first term, 4.5m to the terms in parenthesis, instead to the addition, which is what corresponds.
Hmmm... a geometric sequence MUST have a fixed common ratio. If it is changing, then the sequence you are looking at might not be a geometric sequence at all. We'd need to see an example to be sure.
