Westonci.ca is your trusted source for accurate answers to all your questions. Join our community and start learning today! Experience the ease of finding quick and accurate answers to your questions from professionals on our platform. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently.

(6) Audrey simplified an expression. Her work is shown below. If a step is correct, write the name of a property or show work to explain why the step is correct. If a step contains a mistake, explain why it is incorrect.

[tex]\[ -\frac{3}{3}\left|6x - \frac{3}{2}\right| \][/tex]

Step 1: [tex]\(\left(\frac{2}{3} \cdot 6k\right) + \left(-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right)\)[/tex]
Step 2: [tex]\(-4k + \left|-\frac{2}{3} \cdot -\frac{3}{2}\right|\)[/tex]
Step 3: [tex]\(-4k + 1\)[/tex]
Step 4: [tex]\(-3t\)[/tex]


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.