Question
Jason walked for 0.75 hours at a rate of 3.4 miles per hour. He determines that he walked 0.255 miles. Which best explains Jason’s mistake?
Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly, because 3 times 1 = 3 and 0.255 is not near 3.
Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3.
Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly because there are 3 decimal places in the factors and 3 decimal places in the product.
Jason likely misplaced the decimal because there is 1 decimal place in the factors and 0 decimal places in the product.
Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly, because 3 times 1 = 3 and 0.255 is not near 3.
Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3.
Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly because there are 3 decimal places in the factors and 3 decimal places in the product.
Jason likely misplaced the decimal because there is 1 decimal place in the factors and 0 decimal places in the product.
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To determine Jason's mistake, we can first calculate the actual distance he should have walked based on the time and speed provided.
Jason walked for 0.75 hours at a rate of 3.4 miles per hour. The formula for distance is:
\[ \text{Distance} = \text{Rate} \times \text{Time} \]
Substituting in the values:
\[ \text{Distance} = 3.4 \, \text{miles per hour} \times 0.75 \, \text{hours} = 2.55 \, \text{miles} \]
The distance calculated is 2.55 miles, not 0.255 miles.
Now let's assess the options given:
1. **Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly, because 3 times 1 = 3 and 0.255 is not near 3.**
- This explanation doesn't align well because the numbers aren't related in the way described.
2. **Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3.**
- This explanation makes sense. The actual result of the calculation is 2.55 miles, and if Jason incorrectly moved the decimal in his calculation, he could have arrived at 0.255.
3. **Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly because there are 3 decimal places in the factors and 3 decimal places in the product.**
- This is not a clear explanation related to the nature of his error regarding the misplacement of the decimal.
4. **Jason likely misplaced the decimal because there is 1 decimal place in the factors and 0 decimal places in the product.**
- This is somewhat misleading. While the original numbers do have decimal places, that alone doesn’t explain the precise nature of his mistake.
Therefore, the best explanation is **"Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3."**
Jason walked for 0.75 hours at a rate of 3.4 miles per hour. The formula for distance is:
\[ \text{Distance} = \text{Rate} \times \text{Time} \]
Substituting in the values:
\[ \text{Distance} = 3.4 \, \text{miles per hour} \times 0.75 \, \text{hours} = 2.55 \, \text{miles} \]
The distance calculated is 2.55 miles, not 0.255 miles.
Now let's assess the options given:
1. **Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly, because 3 times 1 = 3 and 0.255 is not near 3.**
- This explanation doesn't align well because the numbers aren't related in the way described.
2. **Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3.**
- This explanation makes sense. The actual result of the calculation is 2.55 miles, and if Jason incorrectly moved the decimal in his calculation, he could have arrived at 0.255.
3. **Jason likely applied his times tables incorrectly because there are 3 decimal places in the factors and 3 decimal places in the product.**
- This is not a clear explanation related to the nature of his error regarding the misplacement of the decimal.
4. **Jason likely misplaced the decimal because there is 1 decimal place in the factors and 0 decimal places in the product.**
- This is somewhat misleading. While the original numbers do have decimal places, that alone doesn’t explain the precise nature of his mistake.
Therefore, the best explanation is **"Jason likely misplaced the decimal, because 3 times 1 = 3, and if the decimal was between the 2 and the 5, the number would be near 3."**
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.