Answer:
it's times 4 every time
Step-by-step explanation:
4.5 times 4 is 18 etc
Answer:
D) 3x^2 - 12
Step-by-step explanation:
Using PEMDAS;
There is no need to evaluate the part of the equation (x^2 - 8) because is no need to, as it is already in its simplest form.
We must evaluate the part of the equation continuing with, "- (-2x^2+4)," as it is not in its simplest form.
Evaluating "- (-2x^2+4)":
Step 1: Distributing the negative
Once distributing the negative symbol amongst the values within the parenthesis according to PEMDAS, we get "2x^2 - 4" as the product.
Step 2: Consider the rest of the equation to evaluate
Since the part of the equation is still in play here as it is a part of the original equation to be solved, we must evaluate it as a whole to get the final answer.
Thus,
x^2 -8 + 2x^2 - 4 = ___
*we can remove the parenthesis as it has no purpose, since it makes no difference.
Evaluating for the answer, we get,
x^2+2x^2 + (-8 - 4) = 3x^2 - 12
Hence, the answer is D) 3x^2 - 12.
The bonus would be worth $493,000.
3.4% = 3.4/100 = 0.034; 3.4% of 14500000 = 0.034(14500000) = 493000.
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Is it possible for Bruce and Felicia to have used the same number of tiles? Use complete sentences to explain your reasoning.
No
5x + 2 ≠ 5x + 5
because
2 ≠ 5
If they each used the same number of tiles, how many tiles were in each box?
6x + 2 = 5x + 17
6x - 5x + 2 - 2 = 5x - 5x + 17 - 2
x = 15 tiles
Answer:
A. The variable x in the first equation has a coefficient of one so there will be fewer steps to the solution.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given
Required
Efficient way of solving the equations
<em>The efficient way of solving this problem is by solving for x in the first equation because it has a coefficient of 1;</em>
The evidence is shown as follows;
<em>Make x the subject of formula in equation 1</em>
<em>Substitute 1 + 3y for x in equation 2</em>
<em>Open bracket</em>
<em>Make y the subject of formula</em>
<em>Divide both sides by 23</em>
Recall that x = 1 + 3y
<em>Substitute 0 for y in the above expression</em>
Solving for y in the second equation will take more steps
