Welcome to Westonci.ca, the Q&A platform where your questions are met with detailed answers from experienced experts. Join our platform to connect with experts ready to provide accurate answers to your questions in various fields. Explore comprehensive solutions to your questions from a wide range of professionals on our user-friendly platform.
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]
Your visit means a lot to us. Don't hesitate to return for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. We hope this was helpful. Please come back whenever you need more information or answers to your queries. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed by returning for our latest expert advice.