At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Which inequality models this problem? The length of a rectangle is three times its width. If the perimeter is at most 112 centimeters, what is the greatest possible value for the width?
@ParthKohli @mathmate @UnkleRhaukus
@UnkleRhaukus please help!
My choice is D 2w + 2 • (3w) ≥112 2w + 2 • (3w) < 112 2w + 2 • (3w) > 112 2w + 2 • (3w) ≤112
what is a formula for the perimeter of a rectangle ? ( in term of length l, and width w)
No we dont have to solve it
We need to make/find the inequality
The perimeter is \[P = \ell+w+\ell+w = 2\ell + 2w\]
Am I right???? I think its D because at most is < with _ under it
hmm, that is a short cut yes
Well ueah but I have done the problem and I got D! Also like i said....... The at most sign is < with _ under it
Ok so am I right?
yes, yeah, maybe. YES
Really dude come on!
Yes or No!
As you say, the only difference between the options is the inequality sign, and ` ≤ ` is the same as ` at most `
Which inequality models this problem? Eduardo started a business selling sporting goods. He spent $7500 to obtain his merchandise, and it costs him $300 per week for general expenses. He earns $850 per week in sales. What is the minimum number of weeks it will take for Eduardo to make a profit?
is this another multiple-choice, where the options are the same up unto the inequality sign?
Yes / No / Maybe ?
300w > 7500 + 850w 850w > 7500 + 300w 850w < 7500 + 300w 850w ≥ 7500 + 300w
consider the weekly profit : sales - expenses how many week do you need to for the profit weekly profit * weeks to be greater than the cost of the merchandise
My choice is A
Consider, if A were true, would Eduardo ever turn a profit on the business?
how many weeks (w), do you think?
let's check A: 300w > 7500 + 850w ? 300(15) > 7500 + 850(15) ? 4500 > 7500 + 12750 ? 4500 > 20250 ?
Well how would we get the inequality
consider the weekly profit : sales - expenses how many week do you need for the profit: weekly profit * weeks to be greater than the cost of the merchandise (sales - expenses)weeks > merchandise
(sales - expenses)weeks > merchandise (sales)weeks - (expenses)weeks > merchandise (sales)w - (expenses)w > merchandise
B????? Dude, the 300 is at the end
how did they get get the + 300w as the last term on most of the options
ok I really dont understand
(sales)w - (expenses)w > merchandise (sales)w > merchandise + (expenses)w
So it is B
Well am i right?
how many weeks does that correspond to?
What do we have to do to solve it?
let's check B: 850w > 7500 + 300w 850(8) > 7500 + 300(8) ? 6800 > 7500 + 2400 ?
So its B??
Dude you litterally going around everything....
is 6800 > 7500 + 2400 ? is 6800 > 9900 ?
Where did you get the figure of 8 weeks from ?
Ok dude is it B or not!