It is impossible because it's base is not circular. A solid of revolution is <span>obtained by rotating a </span>plane curve<span> around some </span>straight line, that is, <span>the </span>axis of revolution that lies on the same plane. The closest to a square pyramid applying this concept is by rotating a right triangle around the opposite or adjacent side (the axis), but the shape that you get is a straight circular cone.
The price for red paper = 1.25
the price for foil = 2.5
the solid is made up of 2 regular octagons, 8 sides, joined up by 8 rectangles, one on each side towards the other octagonal face.
from the figure, we can see that the apothem is 5 for the octagons, and since each side is 3 cm long, the perimeter of one octagon is 3*8 = 24.
the standing up sides are simply rectangles of 8x3.
if we can just get the area of all those ten figures, and sum them up, that'd be the area of the solid.
![\bf \textit{area of a regular polygon}\\\\ A=\cfrac{1}{2}ap~~ \begin{cases} a=apothem\\ p=perimeter\\[-0.5em] \hrulefill\\ a=5\\ p=24 \end{cases}\implies A=\cfrac{1}{2}(5)(24)\implies \stackrel{\textit{just for one octagon}}{A=60} \\\\[-0.35em] \rule{34em}{0.25pt}\\\\ \stackrel{\textit{two octagon's area}}{2(60)}~~+~~\stackrel{\textit{eight rectangle's area}}{8(3\cdot 8)}\implies 120+192\implies 312](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cbf%20%5Ctextit%7Barea%20of%20a%20regular%20polygon%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C%20A%3D%5Ccfrac%7B1%7D%7B2%7Dap~~%20%5Cbegin%7Bcases%7D%20a%3Dapothem%5C%5C%20p%3Dperimeter%5C%5C%5B-0.5em%5D%20%5Chrulefill%5C%5C%20a%3D5%5C%5C%20p%3D24%20%5Cend%7Bcases%7D%5Cimplies%20A%3D%5Ccfrac%7B1%7D%7B2%7D%285%29%2824%29%5Cimplies%20%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7Bjust%20for%20one%20octagon%7D%7D%7BA%3D60%7D%20%5C%5C%5C%5C%5B-0.35em%5D%20%5Crule%7B34em%7D%7B0.25pt%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C%20%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7Btwo%20octagon%27s%20area%7D%7D%7B2%2860%29%7D~~%2B~~%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7Beight%20rectangle%27s%20area%7D%7D%7B8%283%5Ccdot%208%29%7D%5Cimplies%20120%2B192%5Cimplies%20312)
Answer:
-5x+3 OR 5x-3
Step-by-step explanation:
You find the inverse by replacing the x with the y, and solving for y. Doing this actually gives you -5x+3 but in this case, the closest answer would be 5x-3.
UPDATE: -5x + 3 can be written as 3 - 5x lol
Ok so first equate all the three equations whether by substituting or by eliminating then choose the one das not the answer
