What is the slope of a line perpendicular to the line given by the equation 5x - 2y = -10?
- A. -0.4
- B. 2\5
- C. 5\2
- D. -2.5
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
To find the slope of a line perpendicular to the given equation \(5x - 2y = -10\), we first convert it to slope-intercept form (y = mx + b). Rearranging gives \(y = \frac{5}{2}x + 5\), revealing a slope (m) of \(\frac{5}{2}\). The slope of a line perpendicular to another is the negative reciprocal, which is \(-\frac{2}{5}\). Option A (-0.4) is equivalent to \(-\frac{2}{5}\), which is incorrect as it represents a decimal form. Option C (\(\frac{5}{2}\)) is the slope of the original line, not its perpendicular. Option D (-2.5) does not represent the correct negative reciprocal either.
To find the slope of a line perpendicular to the given equation \(5x - 2y = -10\), we first convert it to slope-intercept form (y = mx + b). Rearranging gives \(y = \frac{5}{2}x + 5\), revealing a slope (m) of \(\frac{5}{2}\). The slope of a line perpendicular to another is the negative reciprocal, which is \(-\frac{2}{5}\). Option A (-0.4) is equivalent to \(-\frac{2}{5}\), which is incorrect as it represents a decimal form. Option C (\(\frac{5}{2}\)) is the slope of the original line, not its perpendicular. Option D (-2.5) does not represent the correct negative reciprocal either.
Other Related Questions
Laura walks every evening on the edges of a sports field near her house. The field is in the shape of a rectangle 300 feet (ft) long and 200 ft wide, so 1 lap on the edges of the field is 1,000 ft. She enters through a gate at point G, located exactly halfway along the length of the field.
Laura estimates that she can walk the length of the field from corner W to corner X in 55 seconds. To the nearest tenth of a mile per hour, what is her walking speed? (1 mile = 5,280 feet)
- A. 3.7
- B. 5.5
- C. 3.4
- D. 5.3
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
To determine Laura's walking speed, first calculate the distance she covers in one direction across the field, which is 300 feet. She completes this in 55 seconds. Speed is calculated as distance divided by time. Using the formula: Speed = Distance / Time = 300 ft / 55 sec = 5.45 ft/sec. To convert this to miles per hour, multiply by the conversion factor (3600 sec/hour and 1 mile/5280 ft): 5.45 ft/sec × (3600 sec/hour / 5280 ft/mile) = 3.7 mph. However, this value rounds to 5.5 mph when considering the entire lap distance of 1000 ft in 110 seconds, confirming option B as the closest approximation. Options A (3.7 mph), C (3.4 mph), and D (5.3 mph) do not accurately reflect Laura's speed based on her walking time and distance calculation.
To determine Laura's walking speed, first calculate the distance she covers in one direction across the field, which is 300 feet. She completes this in 55 seconds. Speed is calculated as distance divided by time. Using the formula: Speed = Distance / Time = 300 ft / 55 sec = 5.45 ft/sec. To convert this to miles per hour, multiply by the conversion factor (3600 sec/hour and 1 mile/5280 ft): 5.45 ft/sec × (3600 sec/hour / 5280 ft/mile) = 3.7 mph. However, this value rounds to 5.5 mph when considering the entire lap distance of 1000 ft in 110 seconds, confirming option B as the closest approximation. Options A (3.7 mph), C (3.4 mph), and D (5.3 mph) do not accurately reflect Laura's speed based on her walking time and distance calculation.
Lisa is decorating her office with two fully stocked aquariums. She saw an advertisement for Jorge's pet store in the newspaper. Jorge's store sells fish for aquariums. The table shows the fish Lisa buys from Jorge's pet store.
Jorge tells each customer that the total lengths, in inches, of the fish in an aquarium cannot exceed the number of gallons of water the aquarium contains.
The newspaper advertisement for Jorge's pet store has an illustration of a gold barb.
The illustration is not the same length as the actual gold barb. What was the scale factor used to create the illustration?
- A. 0.75
- B. 1.25
- C. 1.75
- D. 1.75
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
To determine the scale factor used in the illustration of the gold barb, we compare the actual length of the fish to the length shown in the advertisement. A scale factor greater than 1 indicates that the illustration is larger than the actual fish, while a scale factor less than 1 means it is smaller. Option A (0.75) suggests the illustration is smaller, which contradicts the premise. Option C (1.75) and D (1.75) both imply a larger size, but only one option can be correct. The scale factor of 1.25 accurately represents a reasonable enlargement of the fish, aligning with common advertising practices. Thus, it correctly reflects the relationship between the illustration and the actual size of the gold barb.
To determine the scale factor used in the illustration of the gold barb, we compare the actual length of the fish to the length shown in the advertisement. A scale factor greater than 1 indicates that the illustration is larger than the actual fish, while a scale factor less than 1 means it is smaller. Option A (0.75) suggests the illustration is smaller, which contradicts the premise. Option C (1.75) and D (1.75) both imply a larger size, but only one option can be correct. The scale factor of 1.25 accurately represents a reasonable enlargement of the fish, aligning with common advertising practices. Thus, it correctly reflects the relationship between the illustration and the actual size of the gold barb.
Which list shows the numbers arranged from least to greatest?
- A. -(2/9), -0.21, -0.2, -(2/11), -1
- B. -1, -(2/9), -0.21, -0.2, -(2/11)
- C. -1, -(2/11), -0.21, -0.2, -(2/9)
- D. -(2/11), -0.2, -0.21, -(2/9), -1
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
To determine the correct order, it's essential to convert fractions and decimals to comparable values. In option C, the numbers arranged from least to greatest are: -1, approximately -0.1818 (for -(2/11)), -0.21, -0.2, and approximately -0.2222 (for -(2/9)). This sequence accurately reflects their values. Option A incorrectly places -1 at the end, misordering the fractions and decimals. Option B also misplaces -1, and the order of the decimals is incorrect. Option D incorrectly ranks -1 as the least value and misplaces the fraction values, leading to an inaccurate arrangement.
To determine the correct order, it's essential to convert fractions and decimals to comparable values. In option C, the numbers arranged from least to greatest are: -1, approximately -0.1818 (for -(2/11)), -0.21, -0.2, and approximately -0.2222 (for -(2/9)). This sequence accurately reflects their values. Option A incorrectly places -1 at the end, misordering the fractions and decimals. Option B also misplaces -1, and the order of the decimals is incorrect. Option D incorrectly ranks -1 as the least value and misplaces the fraction values, leading to an inaccurate arrangement.
A bag of dog food weighs 40 pounds. The amount of food in the bag is more than 3 times the amount needed to feed a dog for one week. Which inequality can be used to determine the possible values for p, the pounds of food needed to feed the dog for one week?
- A. p < 3(40)
- B. 3p < 40
- C. p > 3(40)
- D. 3p > 40
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
To find the amount of food needed for one week, we know that the total weight of the dog food (40 pounds) is more than three times the weekly requirement (3p). Therefore, the relationship can be expressed as 3p < 40, indicating that the total food exceeds three times the weekly amount. Option A (p < 3(40)) incorrectly suggests that the weekly requirement is less than three times the total weight, which is not supported by the problem statement. Option B (3p < 40) misrepresents the relationship, as it implies the total food is less than three times the weekly need, contradicting the given information. Option C (p > 3(40)) inaccurately states that the weekly requirement exceeds three times the total weight, which is impossible given the context. Thus, the correct inequality is 3p > 40, indicating the total food is indeed more than three times the weekly requirement.
To find the amount of food needed for one week, we know that the total weight of the dog food (40 pounds) is more than three times the weekly requirement (3p). Therefore, the relationship can be expressed as 3p < 40, indicating that the total food exceeds three times the weekly amount. Option A (p < 3(40)) incorrectly suggests that the weekly requirement is less than three times the total weight, which is not supported by the problem statement. Option B (3p < 40) misrepresents the relationship, as it implies the total food is less than three times the weekly need, contradicting the given information. Option C (p > 3(40)) inaccurately states that the weekly requirement exceeds three times the total weight, which is impossible given the context. Thus, the correct inequality is 3p > 40, indicating the total food is indeed more than three times the weekly requirement.