Question
question.
Which is missing (5,17) (-1,1) (7,23) (10,32)
Answers. (5,21) (-1,5) (7,6) (2,8)
Which is missing (5,17) (-1,1) (7,23) (10,32)
Answers. (5,21) (-1,5) (7,6) (2,8)
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To find the missing pair among the options (5,21), (-1,5), (7,6), and (2,8), let's analyze the pattern in the given pairs: (5,17), (-1,1), (7,23), and (10,32).
We can look for patterns relating the first numbers in each pair to the second numbers.
1. In the first pair (5, 17), we can see that 5 increases to 17, which is \(5 \times 3 + 2 = 17\).
2. In the second pair (-1, 1), we note that \(-1\) is transformed into \(1\). This can be expressed as \(-1 \times 2 + 3 = 1\).
3. In the third pair (7, 23), we follow a similar process: \(7 \times 3 + 2 = 23\).
4. In the fourth pair (10, 32), we have \(10 \times 3 + 2 = 32\).
Now we can notice a pattern: for the first three pairs, it appears every transformation is by multiplying by 3 and adding 2. However, in the second pair, (-1, 1), the transformation is different.
Given that the first part does not consistently follow the same rule, let's observe the second parts.
From the second numbers:
- 17 is derived from 5
- 1 is derived from -1
- 23 is derived from 7
- 32 is derived from 10
Now let's analyze the options to find correspondence with either the given pairs or derive it consistently.
For the pairs:
1. \(5, 21\)
2. \(-1, 5\)
3. \(7, 6\)
4. \(2, 8\)
Comparing the transformation from each first number in the previous pairs, we notice:
- For \(5\) producing \(17\), \(21\) is too remote as compared to previous values in a simple transformation.
- For \(-1\) producing \(1\), moving to \(5\) again looks unrelated.
- For \(7\) producing \(23\), deriving \(6\) also shows no simple calculation.
- For \(2\), moving towards \(8\) could relate, but also isn’t plausible.
If we want an intuitive understanding of missing values rather than strict arithmetic, we broadly may expect to follow the trend of increasing values or patterns.
Consider whether \( (-1, 5) \) could be appreciated as producing a smaller leap relative to others.
However, without an exact transformation rule established from the pairs provided, we'll assert:
- The most fitting pair likely, trying to fit with either the progression or change, while not definitively calculative, seems \((-1, 5)\) aligns with lesser contrast from given figures, adheres in some logic as it simplifies comparably with lowest initial values toward rising sum(s).
To summarize, the closest contextually justified choices render:
**Selected pair could be (-1, 5).**
We can look for patterns relating the first numbers in each pair to the second numbers.
1. In the first pair (5, 17), we can see that 5 increases to 17, which is \(5 \times 3 + 2 = 17\).
2. In the second pair (-1, 1), we note that \(-1\) is transformed into \(1\). This can be expressed as \(-1 \times 2 + 3 = 1\).
3. In the third pair (7, 23), we follow a similar process: \(7 \times 3 + 2 = 23\).
4. In the fourth pair (10, 32), we have \(10 \times 3 + 2 = 32\).
Now we can notice a pattern: for the first three pairs, it appears every transformation is by multiplying by 3 and adding 2. However, in the second pair, (-1, 1), the transformation is different.
Given that the first part does not consistently follow the same rule, let's observe the second parts.
From the second numbers:
- 17 is derived from 5
- 1 is derived from -1
- 23 is derived from 7
- 32 is derived from 10
Now let's analyze the options to find correspondence with either the given pairs or derive it consistently.
For the pairs:
1. \(5, 21\)
2. \(-1, 5\)
3. \(7, 6\)
4. \(2, 8\)
Comparing the transformation from each first number in the previous pairs, we notice:
- For \(5\) producing \(17\), \(21\) is too remote as compared to previous values in a simple transformation.
- For \(-1\) producing \(1\), moving to \(5\) again looks unrelated.
- For \(7\) producing \(23\), deriving \(6\) also shows no simple calculation.
- For \(2\), moving towards \(8\) could relate, but also isn’t plausible.
If we want an intuitive understanding of missing values rather than strict arithmetic, we broadly may expect to follow the trend of increasing values or patterns.
Consider whether \( (-1, 5) \) could be appreciated as producing a smaller leap relative to others.
However, without an exact transformation rule established from the pairs provided, we'll assert:
- The most fitting pair likely, trying to fit with either the progression or change, while not definitively calculative, seems \((-1, 5)\) aligns with lesser contrast from given figures, adheres in some logic as it simplifies comparably with lowest initial values toward rising sum(s).
To summarize, the closest contextually justified choices render:
**Selected pair could be (-1, 5).**