Westonci.ca offers quick and accurate answers to your questions. Join our community and get the insights you need today. Explore thousands of questions and answers from a knowledgeable community of experts on our user-friendly platform. Join our Q&A platform to connect with experts dedicated to providing accurate answers to your questions in various fields.
Sagot :
To determine which step is not algebraically correct when solving for [tex]\( t \)[/tex], let's analyze each step carefully.
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ w \cdot r_1 \cdot t = r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
To isolate [tex]\( t \)[/tex], we can divide both sides of the equation by [tex]\( t \)[/tex], assuming [tex]\( t \neq 0 \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ w \cdot r_1 = r_2 \][/tex]
This is algebraically correct.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ w = t \cdot (r_1 + r_2) \][/tex]
To solve for [tex]\( t \)[/tex], we divide both sides by [tex]\( (r_1 + r_2) \)[/tex], assuming [tex]\( r_1 + r_2 \neq 0 \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ t = \frac{w}{r_1 + r_2} \][/tex]
This is also algebraically correct.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
To solve for [tex]\( t \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ t = \frac{w}{r_1 \cdot r_2} \][/tex]
However, this step is not correct given the original equation. The relationship described by [tex]\( w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \)[/tex] doesn't match the structure of the original equation [tex]\( w \cdot r_1 \cdot t = r_2 \cdot t \)[/tex], and therefore the manipulation of the variables leads to an incorrect representation.
### Conclusion:
The third step:
[tex]\[ w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
is not algebraically correct when solving for [tex]\( t \)[/tex].
So, the incorrect step is:
[tex]\[ \boxed{3} \][/tex]
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ w \cdot r_1 \cdot t = r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
To isolate [tex]\( t \)[/tex], we can divide both sides of the equation by [tex]\( t \)[/tex], assuming [tex]\( t \neq 0 \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ w \cdot r_1 = r_2 \][/tex]
This is algebraically correct.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ w = t \cdot (r_1 + r_2) \][/tex]
To solve for [tex]\( t \)[/tex], we divide both sides by [tex]\( (r_1 + r_2) \)[/tex], assuming [tex]\( r_1 + r_2 \neq 0 \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ t = \frac{w}{r_1 + r_2} \][/tex]
This is also algebraically correct.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
To solve for [tex]\( t \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ t = \frac{w}{r_1 \cdot r_2} \][/tex]
However, this step is not correct given the original equation. The relationship described by [tex]\( w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \)[/tex] doesn't match the structure of the original equation [tex]\( w \cdot r_1 \cdot t = r_2 \cdot t \)[/tex], and therefore the manipulation of the variables leads to an incorrect representation.
### Conclusion:
The third step:
[tex]\[ w = r_1 \cdot r_2 \cdot t \][/tex]
is not algebraically correct when solving for [tex]\( t \)[/tex].
So, the incorrect step is:
[tex]\[ \boxed{3} \][/tex]
We appreciate your visit. Hopefully, the answers you found were beneficial. Don't hesitate to come back for more information. We hope this was helpful. Please come back whenever you need more information or answers to your queries. We're glad you chose Westonci.ca. Revisit us for updated answers from our knowledgeable team.