Find the information you're looking for at Westonci.ca, the trusted Q&A platform with a community of knowledgeable experts. Experience the convenience of getting accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of professionals. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of experts on our Q&A platform.
Sagot :
Let's analyze Audrey's work step by step to evaluate the correctness of each step in the simplification process.
The original expression is:
[tex]\[ -\frac{3}{3}\left|6x-\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ \left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) + \left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \][/tex]
Analysis:
- The expression [tex]\(\left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) \)[/tex] simplifies to [tex]\( 4k \)[/tex]. This part appears to follow the simplification correctly, where:
[tex]\[ \frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k = 4k \][/tex]
- The second part of the expression [tex]\(\left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \)[/tex] is unclear and does not make sense mathematically. The use of a comma instead of an arithmetic operation indicates an error.
- Also, the initial expression given was [tex]\(-\frac{3}{3}\left|6x - \frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex] which does not align with Step 1.
Conclusion: Step 1 is incorrect.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ -4k +\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
Analysis:
- On the right-hand side, [tex]\(\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ -\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2} = 1 \][/tex]
- Because we are dealing with an absolute value, [tex]\(|1| = 1\)[/tex].
- However, evaluating this entire step isn't directly derivable from Step 1's mistake.
Conclusion: Step 2 is incorrect.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Analysis:
- This step follows correctly from the accurate simplification from the product and the absolute value seen in the analysis of Step 2, but not from Audrey's initial Step 2 mistake.
[tex]\[ -4k + \left| 1 \right| = -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Conclusion: Step 3 is correct in its simplified forms.
### Step 4:
[tex]\[ -3t \][/tex]
Analysis:
- Transitioning to a completely different variable [tex]\( t \)[/tex] without any prior introduction or context indicates an issue. Additionally, the term [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex] bears no logical tie to the previous simplification step.
- There is no computation step or logical reasoning that supports changing from [tex]\(-4k + 1\)[/tex] to [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex].
Conclusion: Step 4 is incorrect.
To summarize:
- Step 1 is incorrect.
- Step 2 is incorrect.
- Step 3 is correct.
- Step 4 is incorrect.
The review of Audrey's simplification process shows that the overall steps have multiple conceptual and arithmetic errors except Step 3 which is accurate on its own.
The original expression is:
[tex]\[ -\frac{3}{3}\left|6x-\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
### Step 1:
[tex]\[ \left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) + \left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \][/tex]
Analysis:
- The expression [tex]\(\left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) \)[/tex] simplifies to [tex]\( 4k \)[/tex]. This part appears to follow the simplification correctly, where:
[tex]\[ \frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k = 4k \][/tex]
- The second part of the expression [tex]\(\left(-\frac{2}{3}, -\frac{3}{2}\right) \)[/tex] is unclear and does not make sense mathematically. The use of a comma instead of an arithmetic operation indicates an error.
- Also, the initial expression given was [tex]\(-\frac{3}{3}\left|6x - \frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex] which does not align with Step 1.
Conclusion: Step 1 is incorrect.
### Step 2:
[tex]\[ -4k +\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]
Analysis:
- On the right-hand side, [tex]\(\left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ -\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2} = 1 \][/tex]
- Because we are dealing with an absolute value, [tex]\(|1| = 1\)[/tex].
- However, evaluating this entire step isn't directly derivable from Step 1's mistake.
Conclusion: Step 2 is incorrect.
### Step 3:
[tex]\[ -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Analysis:
- This step follows correctly from the accurate simplification from the product and the absolute value seen in the analysis of Step 2, but not from Audrey's initial Step 2 mistake.
[tex]\[ -4k + \left| 1 \right| = -4k + 1 \][/tex]
Conclusion: Step 3 is correct in its simplified forms.
### Step 4:
[tex]\[ -3t \][/tex]
Analysis:
- Transitioning to a completely different variable [tex]\( t \)[/tex] without any prior introduction or context indicates an issue. Additionally, the term [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex] bears no logical tie to the previous simplification step.
- There is no computation step or logical reasoning that supports changing from [tex]\(-4k + 1\)[/tex] to [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex].
Conclusion: Step 4 is incorrect.
To summarize:
- Step 1 is incorrect.
- Step 2 is incorrect.
- Step 3 is correct.
- Step 4 is incorrect.
The review of Audrey's simplification process shows that the overall steps have multiple conceptual and arithmetic errors except Step 3 which is accurate on its own.
Thank you for visiting our platform. We hope you found the answers you were looking for. Come back anytime you need more information. We appreciate your time. Please revisit us for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. Thank you for trusting Westonci.ca. Don't forget to revisit us for more accurate and insightful answers.