Pls help me this was due a long time ago ❤️
1 answer:
You might be interested in
So the rate of change can be found in different places.
For the first one:
This equation is in slope-intercept form, or y = mx + b.
m would be the slope/rate of change, and b the y intercept. (x and y would just be any sets of ordered pairs that fit into the equation.)
So if you look at which number is in the m spot, or the rate of change spot, you see that 5 is the rate of change.
For the second one: The formula for slope is:
m =
So just put in any ordered pairs in. I'm just going to put in the ordered pairs, (6, 30) and (4, 22).
Or,
m = (30 - 22) / (6 - 4)
Or,
m = 8/2
Or 4.
For the third one:
You can use the same formula as I stated above.
So you have to look for two ordered pairs here, two points.
So you can estimate that two of the points are: (0, 3) and (-2, -9).
So then just solve for that.
(-9 - 3) / (-2 - 0) = -12 / -2 = 6
For the last one:
Again, use the same equation.
m = (7 - 1) / (-1 - (-3))
m = 6/2
m = 3
So the one with the greatest rate of change would be C.
For the first one:
This equation is in slope-intercept form, or y = mx + b.
m would be the slope/rate of change, and b the y intercept. (x and y would just be any sets of ordered pairs that fit into the equation.)
So if you look at which number is in the m spot, or the rate of change spot, you see that 5 is the rate of change.
For the second one: The formula for slope is:
m =
So just put in any ordered pairs in. I'm just going to put in the ordered pairs, (6, 30) and (4, 22).
Or,
m = (30 - 22) / (6 - 4)
Or,
m = 8/2
Or 4.
For the third one:
You can use the same formula as I stated above.
So you have to look for two ordered pairs here, two points.
So you can estimate that two of the points are: (0, 3) and (-2, -9).
So then just solve for that.
(-9 - 3) / (-2 - 0) = -12 / -2 = 6
For the last one:
Again, use the same equation.
m = (7 - 1) / (-1 - (-3))
m = 6/2
m = 3
So the one with the greatest rate of change would be C.
I guess the function is . Then
and
.
The derivative is , but there is no
such that
This doesn't contradict Rolle's theorem because does not exists. In other words,
is not differentiable on (-27, 27), so the conditions of Rolle's theorem are not met. (Looks like that would be the last option, or the second to last option if the last one is "Nothing can be concluded")