Question
A ski lodge sells 50
additional ski passes for every 34
inch of snow that falls overnight.
Which equation describes the relationship between p,
the number of ski passes sold, and s,
the inches of snowfall?
Responses
s=3512p
s is equal to 35 and 1 half p
s=6623p
s is equal to 66 and 2 thirds p
p=6623s
p is equal to 66 and 2 thirds s
p=3512s
additional ski passes for every 34
inch of snow that falls overnight.
Which equation describes the relationship between p,
the number of ski passes sold, and s,
the inches of snowfall?
Responses
s=3512p
s is equal to 35 and 1 half p
s=6623p
s is equal to 66 and 2 thirds p
p=6623s
p is equal to 66 and 2 thirds s
p=3512s
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To find the correct equation that describes the relationship between \( p \) (the number of ski passes sold) and \( s \) (the inches of snowfall), we start with the given relationship:
The ski lodge sells 50 additional ski passes for every 34 inches of snow that falls.
This can be expressed as:
\[
\frac{p}{s} = \frac{50}{34}
\]
To simplify this ratio, we can reduce \( \frac{50}{34} \):
\[
\frac{50}{34} = \frac{25}{17}
\]
So, we can write:
\[
p = \frac{25}{17} s
\]
Now we need to convert \( \frac{25}{17} \) into a mixed number or a decimal to match it with the provided options, but since none seem to represent this ratios directly, let's express \( \frac{25}{17} \):
Calculating \( 25 \div 17 \):
\[
25 \div 17 \approx 1.470588
\]
This implies that:
\[
p \approx 1.470588 s
\]
Now, if we want to express this as a ratio, we can also express \( p \) in terms of \( s \) by using the ratio we derived:
\[
p = \frac{25}{17}s
\]
Recall that the nearest equivalent is \( p = \frac{50}{34}s \).
Thus, to summarize, since none of the listed responses explicitly use the \( \frac{25}{17} \) ratio derived, the most fitting response might seem unclear based on the absorbed data presented.
However, the significant correlation shows the essence of comparing sales against snowfall. We interpret \( p \) as a function of \( s \).
To finalize:
Given the information, **the equation that most closely resembles our derived relationship translates well into the relationship described, leading us to believe that a potential error arose in option expression. The derived relation doesn't directly match any response**, if \( p \) directly describes in relation to sales based on snowfall inches.
If assuming nearest representation, we would typically rely upon content measurements to indicate \( p = 3512s\) or relate further. **Conclusively**: might reinforce the facts that further provision of options might be beneficial given operations/properties demonstrated through sales relationally with snowfall.
In conclusion, directly from our calculations while generalizing appearances, **p = 3512 s** might, nonetheless lead to verified doubling of your derived ratio established - descending into specificity of \( p = \frac{25}{17}s \).
Thus, the best answer based on mathematics and proper evaluation would likely lead us towards {p = 3512s} unless further distinct operational features arise from original propositions.
The ski lodge sells 50 additional ski passes for every 34 inches of snow that falls.
This can be expressed as:
\[
\frac{p}{s} = \frac{50}{34}
\]
To simplify this ratio, we can reduce \( \frac{50}{34} \):
\[
\frac{50}{34} = \frac{25}{17}
\]
So, we can write:
\[
p = \frac{25}{17} s
\]
Now we need to convert \( \frac{25}{17} \) into a mixed number or a decimal to match it with the provided options, but since none seem to represent this ratios directly, let's express \( \frac{25}{17} \):
Calculating \( 25 \div 17 \):
\[
25 \div 17 \approx 1.470588
\]
This implies that:
\[
p \approx 1.470588 s
\]
Now, if we want to express this as a ratio, we can also express \( p \) in terms of \( s \) by using the ratio we derived:
\[
p = \frac{25}{17}s
\]
Recall that the nearest equivalent is \( p = \frac{50}{34}s \).
Thus, to summarize, since none of the listed responses explicitly use the \( \frac{25}{17} \) ratio derived, the most fitting response might seem unclear based on the absorbed data presented.
However, the significant correlation shows the essence of comparing sales against snowfall. We interpret \( p \) as a function of \( s \).
To finalize:
Given the information, **the equation that most closely resembles our derived relationship translates well into the relationship described, leading us to believe that a potential error arose in option expression. The derived relation doesn't directly match any response**, if \( p \) directly describes in relation to sales based on snowfall inches.
If assuming nearest representation, we would typically rely upon content measurements to indicate \( p = 3512s\) or relate further. **Conclusively**: might reinforce the facts that further provision of options might be beneficial given operations/properties demonstrated through sales relationally with snowfall.
In conclusion, directly from our calculations while generalizing appearances, **p = 3512 s** might, nonetheless lead to verified doubling of your derived ratio established - descending into specificity of \( p = \frac{25}{17}s \).
Thus, the best answer based on mathematics and proper evaluation would likely lead us towards {p = 3512s} unless further distinct operational features arise from original propositions.