Duplicate Question
The question on this page has been marked as a duplicate question.
Original Question
Marilee is creating a garden in her yard. She needs to put up a fence to keep the animals out of it. She has 40 yards of fencin...Question
Marilee is creating a garden in her yard She needs to put up a fence to keep the animals out of it She had 40 yards of fencing she can erect the situation is modeled using the equation A = -w^2 + 20w where A is the area of the fence and w is the width of the fence. If you were to set up a table to determine the measurement of the stand its corresponding area what would be a reasonable scale for the domain
10
1
5
2
10
1
5
2
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To determine a reasonable scale for the domain of the equation \( A = -w^2 + 20w \), we first need to consider the constraints of the fencing. The total amount of fencing available is 40 yards, which corresponds to a perimeter measurement for a rectangular area. Since the total perimeter \( P \) of a rectangle is \( P = 2l + 2w \), we can simplify this for our case given the fencing constraint:
\[
40 = 2l + 2w \quad \Rightarrow \quad l + w = 20
\]
This means the width \( w \) can vary from 0 to 20 yards, since if \( w \) is 0, the length \( l \) will be 20, while if \( w \) is 20, the length \( l \) will be 0.
The area \( A \) is modeled with respect to width \( w \). To examine the valid maximum width for our situation, we understand that \( w \) can range between the boundaries of 0 and 20:
- **Minimum width (w = 0)**: Area = 0
- **Maximum width (w = 20)**: Length = 0, hence Area = 0
Thus, the domain of \( w \) is \( [0, 20] \).
Next, we analyze the options given for a suitable scale for the domain:
- 10
- 1
- 5
- 2
Since the domain range is from 0 to 20, a scale that allows us to cover this distance effectively would be advisable.
### Reasonable Choices:
- **1**: If we use a scale of 1, we can include all integer widths (0 to 20). This provides the most detailed insight into the values.
- **2**: A scale of 2 would allow for widths of 0, 2, 4,..., 20, which gives us a moderate set of values but lacks granularity.
- **5**: Would limit the widths to 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 – even less detail.
- **10**: Only gives us widths of 0, 10, and 20.
### Conclusion:
A **reasonable scale for the domain** would be **1** so that you can accurately assess all values of \( w \) from 0 to 20. This choice will provide you with the most detailed representation of the widths and their corresponding areas.
\[
40 = 2l + 2w \quad \Rightarrow \quad l + w = 20
\]
This means the width \( w \) can vary from 0 to 20 yards, since if \( w \) is 0, the length \( l \) will be 20, while if \( w \) is 20, the length \( l \) will be 0.
The area \( A \) is modeled with respect to width \( w \). To examine the valid maximum width for our situation, we understand that \( w \) can range between the boundaries of 0 and 20:
- **Minimum width (w = 0)**: Area = 0
- **Maximum width (w = 20)**: Length = 0, hence Area = 0
Thus, the domain of \( w \) is \( [0, 20] \).
Next, we analyze the options given for a suitable scale for the domain:
- 10
- 1
- 5
- 2
Since the domain range is from 0 to 20, a scale that allows us to cover this distance effectively would be advisable.
### Reasonable Choices:
- **1**: If we use a scale of 1, we can include all integer widths (0 to 20). This provides the most detailed insight into the values.
- **2**: A scale of 2 would allow for widths of 0, 2, 4,..., 20, which gives us a moderate set of values but lacks granularity.
- **5**: Would limit the widths to 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 – even less detail.
- **10**: Only gives us widths of 0, 10, and 20.
### Conclusion:
A **reasonable scale for the domain** would be **1** so that you can accurately assess all values of \( w \) from 0 to 20. This choice will provide you with the most detailed representation of the widths and their corresponding areas.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.