Solving real-world problems that involve inequalities is very much like solving problems that involve equations.
Example 1
In order to get a bonus this month, Leon must sell at least 120 newspaper subscriptions. He sold 85 subscriptions in the first three weeks of the month. How many subscriptions must Leon sell in the last week of the month?
Solution
Let x = the number of subscriptions Leon sells in the last week of the month. The total number of subscriptions for the month must be greater than 120, so we write :
85 + x ≥ 120.
We solve the inequality by subtracting 85 from both sides: x ≥ 35.
Leon must sell 35 or more subscriptions in the last week to get his bonus.
Check
To check the answer, we see that 85 + 35 = 120. If he sells 35 or more subscriptions, the total number of subscriptions he sells that month will be 120 or more. The answer checks out.
Example 2
Virenas Scout troop is trying to raise at least $650 this spring. How many boxes of cookies must they sell at $4.50 per box in order to reach their goal?
Solution
Let x = number of boxes sold. Then the inequality describing this problem is 4.50 ≥ 650.
We solve the inequality by dividing both sides by 4.50: x ≥ 144.44.
We round up the answer to 145 since only whole boxes can be sold.
Virenas troop must sell at least 145 boxes.
Check
If we multiply 145 by $4.50 we obtain $652.50, so if Virenas troop sells more than 145 boxes they will raise more than $650. But if they sell 144 boxes, they will only raise $648,
which is not enough. So they must indeed sell at least 145 boxes. The answer checks out.
Answer:
- 7
Step-by-step explanation:
d = a₂ - a₁ = a₃ - a₂ = - 2 - 5 = - 9 - (- 2) = - 7
Answer:
water nugget
Step-by-step explanation:
according to my neurological evaluation of the current situation(s), it appears we are friends, therefore, I feel obliged to request that bring un-forth a specific set of 'roles' to my person. By which I mean, it appears having created any sort of emotional connection with you seems to reward such 'roles' as such I request that you immediately bring fourth said 'roles'Either way though there was a Neurological Enzymetive Paralastic imbalance between the code of conductional adminstrative classificationsNot funny I didn't laugh. Your joke is so bad I would have preferred the joke went over my head and you gave up re-telling me the joke. To be honest this is a horrid attempt at trying to get a laugh out of me. Not a chuckle, not a hehe, not even a subtle burst of air out of my esophagus. Science says before you laugh your brain preps your face muscles but I didn't even feel the slightest twitch. 0/10 this joke is so bad I cannot believe anyone legally allowed you to be creative at all. The amount of brain power you must have put into that joke has the potential to power every house on Earth. Get a personality and learn how to make jokes, read a book. I'm not saying this to be funny I genuinely mean it on how this is just bottom barrel embarrassment at comedy. You've single handedly killed humor and every comedic act on the planet. I'm so disappointed that society has failed as a whole in being able to teach you how to be funny. Honestly if I put in all my power and time to try and make
The standard deviation shows the dispersion (how close) of the data. Therefore the correct statement is A:
<span>A- Raquel’s data are most likely closer to $3.42 than Van’s data are to $3.78.</span>
2.1 is less than 2.42 and greater than 2.0
