All categories

3 years ago

Solve the inequality 0 > –3x – 2x.

Mathematics

1 answer:

Helga [31]3 years ago

6 0

Hey!

Hope this helps...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This really depends on what the question asks, because if you substitute 0 for x, the equation comes to 0 > 0 (which is a logical error), if you substitute 1 for x, the equation comes to 0 > -5 (which is the correct answer). If you substitute -28 for x, you get 0 > 28 (and we know 28 will always be greater than 0, but 0 will never be greater than any positive number), this is the same if you were to substitute -36 for x, you get 0 > 36

So the correct answer is D.) x > 1

because you get 0 > -5 (when you plug in 1 for x), and 0 will always be greater than any given negative number...

------------------------------------------------

One more thing, this question is asking you to MAKE IT TRUE, IF it said 0 ≥ -3x - 2x... THAN A, B, and C would be correct, OR IF it said 0 ≤ -3x - 2x... THAN B and D would be correct, BUT because it only says 0 > -3x - 2x... THAN ONLY D is correct...

With a simple change of signs, you can dramatically change the answer to this equation

You might be interested in

1. Which of the following numbers is an integer, but is not a whole number?

notka56 [123]

1.) -4
2.) Parenthesis, so probably 1+1

I could be wrong. Sorry XD

4 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Please help, What is the nth term rule of the quadratic sequence below?<br> -7,-6,-3,2,9,18,29

gulaghasi [49]

Answer:

nth term = tn = n� - 2n - 6

if i'm wrong i'm rlly rlly sorry!!

6 0

3 years ago

The length of a rectangle is 3 centimeters less than twice its width. If the perimeter of the rectangle is 18 centimeters. find

Ede4ka [16]

Answer:

equation: w +(2w -3) = 18/2
length = 5 cm
width = 4 cm

Step-by-step explanation:

Let w represent the width in cm. Then the length is 2w-3, 3 cm less than twice the width. The perimeter is twice the sum of these, so the sum of length and width is half the perimeter:

w + (2w -3) = 18/2

3w -3 = 9 . . . . collect terms

3w = 12 . . . . add 3

w = 4 . . . . divide by 3

2w-3 = 2·4 -3 = 5 . . . . length

The equation is w + (2w -3) = 18/2; the length is 5; the width is 4.

4 0

3 years ago

after the outbreak of a mysterious disease, the average wait time at a hospital by 70%. Before the outbreak, the average wait ti

Juli2301 [7.4K]

Answer:

1.7m

Step-by-step explanation:

Given that 'm' was the waiting time before the outbreak

After the outbreak, waiting time increased by 70%.

This implies that :

70% of m increase

m + 70% of m

m + 70/100 of m

m + ( 70÷100 ) × m

m + 0.7m

= 1.7m

Step-by-step explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

Nina has prepared the following two-column proof below. She is given that ∠OLN ≅ ∠LNO and she is trying to prove that OL ≅ ON. S

Anit [1.1K]

Step number 3 should really be step number 7, it should be placed after step 4, 5, and 6. The reason is because we won't know that ∠LEO ≅ ∠NEO until after we learn that LE ≅ EN. Because of this, step 3 is in the wrong spot (mistake number one). The secod mistake is that step 7, triangle OLE ≅ triangle ONE is congruent by Angle-Side-Angle (ASA) Postulate, not Side-Angle-Side (SAS) Postulate. It is congruent by ASA because we know that both triangles have equal angles N and L. We also know that the perpendicular bisector creates a 90° angle. So m∠LEO = 90° and ∠NEO = 90°. Therefore, we already have 2 congruent angles in both of the triangles. We also learn that line LE ≅ EN based on the definition of a perpendicular bisector, so we have know one that one side of each triangle is congruent. It is ASA and not AAS, because the ASA Postulate states that two angles and one included side of one triangle are congruent to two angles and one included side of another triangle.

7 0

4 years ago