Step 1
We will consider the Time(min) and distance (km) covered by Ken on his bike on Monday from the table given
From the Monday table
1) The time increases by a constant unit of 20 mins as seen below
[tex]\begin{gathered} 40\text{ -20 = 20 mins} \\ 60-40\text{ = 20 mins} \\ 80-60=\text{ 20 mins} \\ 100\text{ -80 = 20 mins} \end{gathered}[/tex]2) The distance however, does not increase by a constant unit as seen below
[tex]\begin{gathered} 10\text{ - 5= 5km} \\ 12-\text{ 10= 2 km} \\ 14-12\text{ = 2km} \\ 16-14=\text{ 2km} \end{gathered}[/tex]Therefore, the relationship in Monday's table cannot be described by a constant unit rate since the time and distance individually do not increase by a constant unit.
Step 2
From Tuesday's table, we can deduce that
1) The time increases by a constant unit of 20 mins
[tex]\begin{gathered} 40\text{ -20 = 20 mins} \\ 60-40\text{ = 20 mins} \\ 80-60=\text{ 20 mins} \\ 100\text{ -80 = 20 mins} \end{gathered}[/tex]2) The distance increases by a constant unit of 4km as seen below
[tex]\begin{gathered} 8-4=4\operatorname{km} \\ 12-8=4\operatorname{km} \\ 16-12=4\operatorname{km} \\ 20-16=\text{ 4km} \end{gathered}[/tex]Since, both the time and distance individually increases by a constant unit, we can therefore conclude that the relationship in Tuesday's table can be described by a constant unit rate.