Great observation! The equation I initially set up was structured as follows:
\[
6(p - 1.50) = 51
\]
This equation doesn't actually involve the ± sign directly because there is no scenario here that would require a ± term. The expression \( (p - 1.50) \) does not involve a quadratic equation or an absolute value, which is typically where the ± term would come into play.
The use of \( p(x \pm q) = r \) could apply to specific cases involving two possible values, such as when solving for the roots of a quadratic equation, but here, we just had a linear relationship.
To clarify the reasoning without losing the essence of your question:
-
Linear Equation: We were dealing with a straightforward linear equation (not quadratic), hence the absence of ± in the solution.
-
Solving Steps: When we expanded and simplified the equation from \( 6(p - 1.50) = 51 \), we only had to rearrange a single linear expression to find the value of \( p \) by isolating it.
-
No Need for ±: Because we were not dealing with a situation that generated two potential solutions (as would be the case with a quadratic equation), we ended up with a single solution without needing to consider ±.
In summary, the ± sign is typically used when there are two possible outcomes or in certain algebraic contexts, none of which were applicable in this case—a simple linear relationship allowed us to find a single solution without ambiguity. Thank you for pointing that out!