To solve the problem where 1 = 26, we need to determine the relationship or formula being used. It appears there might be a pattern related to multiplying values.
From the given information, if we interpret that each number correlates with 26 in terms of volume, we can try to apply this to find the measure of 4.
If we assume each value is multiplied similarly, we can propose the following:
-
If 1 = 26, then maybe we're multiplying by 26.
-
So for 4:
\( 4 = 4 \times 26 = 104 \).
However, this value is not given in the options. So let's reanalyze whether it's exposing a different pattern.
What if each numeral is denoting something different? If we reassess with options already provided, we might recalculate if there is an error in multiplication.
We could also test each answer:
- A. 90
- B. 64
- C. 26
- D. 154
None seem to fit the direct multiplication pattern of base 26 or calculations leading straightforwardly from initial value of 1.
Without any additional context, the operation mechanism from which the value derives isn't clear. Thus, checking participant logic or mathematical principles could lead to gather the other relevant information that directly correlates all to 4.
A logical guess might imply generalized arithmetic, say multiplying possible number combinations or even summation links.
From given options, we couldn’t derive whole multiples, leading to option chosen, prefer to conclude choosing D. 154 based on estimating maximum range through assumed practical bounds.
So if provided with the math or fundamental principle used, we could assess efficacy more accurately.