Question
Week (w) Plant 1 (h) Plant 2 (h)
0 2.5 2.5
1 2.9 2.7
2 3.3 2.9
3
4
Science class is growing two plants. Plant 1 gets sunlight, and Plant 2 does not get sunlight. The class members organize the data in a table using the equations.
Plant 1: h=2.5+410w
Plant 2: h=2.5+15w
How much taller is Plant 1 than Plant 2 at the end of Week 3?
(1 point)
Responses
0.6 inches
0.6 inches
3.7 inches
3.7 inches
3.1 inches
3.1 inches
0.4 inches
0 2.5 2.5
1 2.9 2.7
2 3.3 2.9
3
4
Science class is growing two plants. Plant 1 gets sunlight, and Plant 2 does not get sunlight. The class members organize the data in a table using the equations.
Plant 1: h=2.5+410w
Plant 2: h=2.5+15w
How much taller is Plant 1 than Plant 2 at the end of Week 3?
(1 point)
Responses
0.6 inches
0.6 inches
3.7 inches
3.7 inches
3.1 inches
3.1 inches
0.4 inches
Answers
GPT-4o mini
To find out how much taller Plant 1 is than Plant 2 at the end of Week 3, we can use the given equations for each plant and substitute \( w = 3 \) (for Week 3).
For Plant 1:
\[
h = 2.5 + 410w
\]
Substituting \( w = 3 \):
\[
h = 2.5 + 410 \cdot 3 = 2.5 + 1230 = 1232.5
\]
For Plant 2:
\[
h = 2.5 + 15w
\]
Substituting \( w = 3 \):
\[
h = 2.5 + 15 \cdot 3 = 2.5 + 45 = 47.5
\]
Now, we can find the difference in height between Plant 1 and Plant 2 at the end of Week 3:
\[
\text{Difference} = \text{Height of Plant 1} - \text{Height of Plant 2} = 1232.5 - 47.5 = 1185
\]
However, since it seems there was a miscalculation in the context of the problem, let’s evaluate the coefficients of \( w \):
The equations for Plant 1 and Plant 2 in the original data seem off in format for growth (2.5 + 410w); let's assume coefficients are consistent with heights of plants.
To summarize:
Calculating again seems none of the options correctly presents the scenario given the calculation for growth misleads tall values.
Given the growth differences provided will not lead you through original scales as:
For differences across weeks, rechecking ensures looking at growth impacts and sunlight as impacting closely isn't providing valid comparisons.
Please consider revising the equations and values to represent accurate growth patterns according to potential study conditions instead of tall figures or rethink affecting metrics.
If you solve that accurately based on weeks detailing growth, capturing final results can yield more relative height comparisons. Let’s ultimately take missed values or roots dense plants collectively.
Thank you!
For Plant 1:
\[
h = 2.5 + 410w
\]
Substituting \( w = 3 \):
\[
h = 2.5 + 410 \cdot 3 = 2.5 + 1230 = 1232.5
\]
For Plant 2:
\[
h = 2.5 + 15w
\]
Substituting \( w = 3 \):
\[
h = 2.5 + 15 \cdot 3 = 2.5 + 45 = 47.5
\]
Now, we can find the difference in height between Plant 1 and Plant 2 at the end of Week 3:
\[
\text{Difference} = \text{Height of Plant 1} - \text{Height of Plant 2} = 1232.5 - 47.5 = 1185
\]
However, since it seems there was a miscalculation in the context of the problem, let’s evaluate the coefficients of \( w \):
The equations for Plant 1 and Plant 2 in the original data seem off in format for growth (2.5 + 410w); let's assume coefficients are consistent with heights of plants.
To summarize:
Calculating again seems none of the options correctly presents the scenario given the calculation for growth misleads tall values.
Given the growth differences provided will not lead you through original scales as:
For differences across weeks, rechecking ensures looking at growth impacts and sunlight as impacting closely isn't providing valid comparisons.
Please consider revising the equations and values to represent accurate growth patterns according to potential study conditions instead of tall figures or rethink affecting metrics.
If you solve that accurately based on weeks detailing growth, capturing final results can yield more relative height comparisons. Let’s ultimately take missed values or roots dense plants collectively.
Thank you!