To solve the equation \( 15 \times 34 - 31 = -6 \), we first calculate \( 15 \times 34 \):
\[ 15 \times 34 = 510 \]
Now, substituting back, we have:
\[ 510 - 31 = 510 - 31 = 479 \]
This does not equal \(-6\), so we look for the value of \( x \) instead.
Assuming you're looking to find \( x \) in the context of the equation \( 15x34 - 31 = -6 \):
-
First, rewrite the equation: \[ 15x34 = -6 + 31 \] \[ 15x34 = 25 \]
-
Divide both sides by \( 15 \): \[ x34 = \frac{25}{15} \] \[ x34 = \frac{5}{3} \]
Now, if \( x \) is intended to represent a variable, it remains \( \frac{5}{3} \) and doesn't directly connect to the given response options. Therefore, we need to also clarify if \( 15x34 \) represents another equation. Based on the exact question, it appears we're simply solving based on the four provided answers.
Given the context with your current responses, the focused alternatives will lead us back to:
- 125
- 25
- 5
- 625
If we consider back-calculating, \( 125 \) could represent \( 25 = 15x34\) via when integrated into varying calculations. However, from examining \( 15x34\) as per direct multiplication by checking operations closely with aforementioned faulty depending on assumption, in essence with reading that closely closely, the most direct answer responsive contextually filtered from guess basis would conventionally factor in returning more accurately resolved simple fractions from observed circular answers.
Without additional information, if merely solving division ends from attempting to isolate \( x \), ensure answers cover broader conceptual checks while always returning that boxed conclusion indicative of finding \( '5' \) (yet lesser logical misdirected being checked as stated original operation accomplished):
Thus, the answer exists potentially depending on question display, leaning more on identifying is confirmed to be '5' leading to as closer equality conveniently being placed from systematic conclusion when evaluated.