At Westonci.ca, we connect you with the best answers from a community of experienced and knowledgeable individuals. Discover the answers you need from a community of experts ready to help you with their knowledge and experience in various fields. Experience the convenience of finding accurate answers to your questions from knowledgeable experts on our 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]
We appreciate your visit. Our platform is always here to offer accurate and reliable answers. Return anytime. Thanks for using our service. We're always here to provide accurate and up-to-date answers to all your queries. Find reliable answers at Westonci.ca. Visit us again for the latest updates and expert advice.