Karissa says the number 17 is an irrational number. Which statement best explains whether Karissa is correct?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Karissa is incorrect because 17 only has 2 factors.
Karissa is incorrect because 17 only has 2 factors.

Karissa is incorrect because 17 can be written as a fraction.
Karissa is incorrect because 17 can be written as a fraction.

Karissa is correct because 17 is not written as a fraction.
Karissa is correct because 17 is not written as a fraction.

Karissa is correct because 17 only has 2 factors.

Answer 1

The correct statement to explain whether Karissa is correct is:

Karissa is incorrect because 17 can be written as a fraction.

This is true because the number 17 can be expressed as \( \frac{17}{1} \), which demonstrates that it is a rational number, not an irrational number.

Answer 2

u sure

Answer 3

Yes, I am sure.

To clarify:

A rational number is defined as any number that can be expressed as the quotient of two integers (where the denominator is not zero). Since 17 can be written as \( \frac{17}{1} \), it is classified as a rational number.

An irrational number, on the other hand, cannot be expressed as a fraction of two integers. Examples include numbers like \( \sqrt{2} \) or \( \pi \).

So, Karissa is indeed incorrect in stating that 17 is an irrational number, and the correct explanation is that it can be written as a fraction.