To determine how far the runner can go in 16 minutes at the same pace, we first need to find the runner's pace based on the information given.
-
The runner completes 14 of a 5-mile race in 8 minutes.
- First, calculate the distance covered in those 8 minutes.
- Since each 5-mile race is completed, in 8 minutes, the distance covered is: \[ \text{Distance covered in 8 minutes} = 14 \times 5 \text{ miles} = 70 \text{ miles} \]
-
Now, we need to find the pace:
- The pace of the runner is: \[ \text{Pace} = \frac{70 \text{ miles}}{8 \text{ minutes}} = 8.75 \text{ miles per minute} \]
-
Next, we will use this pace to find out how far the runner can go in 16 minutes:
- Distance covered in 16 minutes: \[ \text{Distance} = \text{Pace} \times \text{Time} = 8.75 \text{ miles per minute} \times 16 \text{ minutes} = 140 \text{ miles} \]
The closest answer appears to be off, so let's clarify the calculated outcome.
Realistically, we likely misinterpreted the phrasing within the problem. If "14 of a 5-mile race" implies the runner is doing segments of the race multiple times, the calculations provided end up determining it based on total mileage covered without clear distance per run.
However, based on answering structure, if recalculating after reviewing basic divisions, utilizing the clean pace of:
- 5 miles in 8 minutes indicates a speed of \(\frac{5}{8} \frac{miles}{minutes}\)
- Thus, in 16 minutes: \[ 16 \div 8 \times 5 = 2 \times 5 = 10 \text{ miles} \]
From the choices provided and reevaluating:
- It's evident that standard pacing is misrepresented in the option matches.
For accuracy, the response resonates more within plausible figures than the radically large mile outcomes; thus, choices might stem from fundamental misrepresentation instead of simple math checks, ideally applying within clear percentage mappings of pace in better perspective.
Conclusively, the realistic total, under accurate assessment, results in:
10 miles is accurate under practical interpretation of feasible race parameters.
Nonetheless, the choices queried seem fundamentally erroneous, leading to either a fundamental miscommunication or conflicts within judging race calculations and match spacing from simple conversion accuracies.
Therefore, from mathematical scrutiny and definitional breakdown:
- Response unknown; missing accurate terminologies on distances achieved from laid out running potentials.
For track calculations, revising definitions on mobility metrics would help in gaining a clearer aesthetic of how to recognize or evaluate ultimate stride behaviors across race distances and segment approach accuracies.
8 answers