Let's solve the equation step by step:
Given the equation: \[ 2f + 5 - 85 + 2f = 8 \]
-
Combine like terms: \[ 2f + 2f + 5 - 85 = 8 \] This simplifies to: \[ 4f - 80 = 8 \]
-
Next, add 80 to both sides of the equation: \[ 4f - 80 + 80 = 8 + 80 \] This gives: \[ 4f = 88 \]
-
Now, divide both sides by 4: \[ f = \frac{88}{4} \] Simplifying that yields: \[ f = 22 \]
It appears I miscalculated – let's check each option provided against my calculations. Since the solution \( f = 22 \) isn’t one of the options provided (12, \( \frac{8}{3} \), 4, \( \frac{16}{6} \)), it seems there might have been a misunderstanding of the equation setup.
Let's clarify and take another look at the term breakdown earlier: Going through it again: First, let's adjust the original equation since it seems incorrect. We should start again with: Starting with:
- Combine \(2f\) and the constants, noting that: \(5 - 85 = -80\)
Thus considering the setup: \[ 2f + 2f - 80 = 8 \]
And then we reach similar steps leading to the value we've landed: which suggests explicitly solving \(4f = 88\).
Given you are looking for which does match, validating calculations against the prompts left by \(2\) should ideally clarify what input needs leading towards collecting those constants.
If we follow: \[ \begin{align*} 2f + 2f + 5 - 85 & = 8,\ 4f - 80 & = 8\ 4f & = 88\ f & = 22 \end{align*} \]
No numerical value existing among potential responses shows discrepancies alongside verification. You provided inputs \(12\), \( \frac{8}{3}\), \(4\), \(\frac{16}{6}\) – all are incorrect based on original values outlined in the setup, while calculation leading consistently allows \(22\) being the proven outcome for isolating \(f\).
If the scenario posed original contexts differing leading values needing affirm verification could also lead or ensure leading \(from\) numbers intersect prompting values \(f\) herein yielding consistent:
Please evaluate equation input context ensuring return if additional clarification or prompt might intersect correctly!
3 answers