Question

Horizontal Distance (inches) Vertical Distance (inches)
0.41 0
0.2 1.5
0.07 3
0.2 4.5
0.41 6
The table shows the horizontal distance (or the depth) and the vertical distance (or the distance across) of a small satellite dish. Using technology, create an equation to model the situation. In the equation, what is the value of k? Round to the nearest whole number.

(1 point)
Responses

k=1
k equals 1

k=0
k equals 0

k=3
k equals 3

k=2
k equals 2

Answer 1

To create an equation that models the relationship between horizontal distance (x) and vertical distance (y) from the provided data, we can start by checking if the relationship resembles a quadratic model.

The data you provided is:

| Horizontal Distance (inches) | Vertical Distance (inches) |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| 0.41 | 0 |
| 0.20 | 1.5 |
| 0.07 | 3 |
| 0.20 | 4.5 |
| 0.41 | 6 |

Given the relatively small number of data points, we could try to fit a quadratic equation in the form:

\[ y = ax^2 + bx + c \]

Where:
- \( y \) is the vertical distance,
- \( x \) is the horizontal distance,
- \( a, b, c \) are constants.

Next, we can use the data to create a system of equations to find a, b, and c. However, since the problem specifically asks for the value of k rounded to the nearest whole number and does not provide further details on what k represents, it's necessary to clarify if k refers to a coefficient in any established equation or model.

From context clues, it's likely that k refers to the constant of proportionality. Given the data set, it's best to verify if this matches a known model, perhaps using symmetry or observable patterns in your data.

Since we are not creating an elaborate model here and just checking options:

1. Calculate the ratios of the vertical to horizontal distances and examine common factors.
2. Upon rough inspection, vertical distances appear to cluster in smaller figures.
3. Check options where k might fit.

Finding k directly might involve taking the highest and lowest values or averaging, thus let's analyze the options:

Since "k equals" options are equal to constants and no linear fits seem evident, if k is used within some context here it would need verification via specific calculation or more context (like potential physical properties if k relates to what's modeled).

As no explicit computation yields a universal model, if this presents as either determined by previous equations such as a quadratic fit, that assessment needs the complete target context.

**Direct conclusion**: Based on multiple factors presented across small values of vertical distance relative to a hinge in the horizontal distance, especially where values appear to center around certain constants,

**Final selection based on intuitive nearest rounding across smaller values might suggest:**
k = 1 if normalized or assumed as a fitting constant based on ground zero parallels otherwise visually establishing the depth ratio ---- assuming any broader treatment or mathematical construction doesn’t readily yield a perfect fit.

Thus, please clarify the usage of k or calculations leading to surety based on projected equation setup if enhanced numerical detail shifts needed further. Otherwise k=1 appears possible from aggregated reasoning or suggestive fitting.