To address the questions, let's first analyze the lengths of Corrine's crayons:
The lengths in inches are: 4, 212, 312, 334, 3, 214, 212, 314, 3
It seems like it is meant to be read as:
- 4
- 2.12
- 3.12
- 3.34
- 3
- 2.14
- 2.12
- 3.14
- 3
Now, let's summarize the data in a clearer way:
- 4 (1)
- 2.12 (2)
- 3.12 (1)
- 3.34 (1)
- 3 (2)
- 2.14 (1)
- 2.12 (2)
- 3.14 (1)
Thus, the effective lengths (after converting decimals to fractional inches if needed) are:
- 2 (1 count)
- 2.12 (3 counts)
- 3 (3 counts)
- 3.12 (1 count)
- 3.14 (1 count)
- 4 (1 count)
Part A
For the line plot, we need to determine which fractions should be marked on the scale. Since we're working with 4-inch lengths and several 2.x and 3.x values, the appropriate fractions on the scale would likely be fractions that represent subdivisions of the whole number lengths we have.
The fractions that make sense as increments between 2 and 4 are:
- halves (since we have full numbers 2, 3, and 4)
- fourths could also work, but since 2, 3, and 4 are whole numbers, halves would be more relevant.
So the fractions to consider marking on the line plot scale:
- halves
- fourths (though halves could make it simpler)
Part B
Let’s analyze the provided statements based on the data:
- "There will be 3 dots above 2." - This is false. There would only be dots above 2.12, not 2.
- "There will be the same number of dots above 2.12 as there will be above 3." - True. There are 3 counts for each.
- "Corrine measured a total of 8 crayons." - False. There are actually 9 counts when we tally everything.
- "The longest crayon is 3 inches long." - False. The longest crayon length is 4 inches.
Based on this analysis, the correct statement from Part B is:
- "There will be the same number of dots above 2.12 as there will be above 3."
Summary
Part A: Halves and fourths (but halves are more relevant). Part B: The correct statement is about the counts of dots above the respective measurements.