To assess Natasha's work, let's clarify the problem and the correct way to solve it.
The problem states that the attendance on Tuesday (300 people) is 150% of the attendance on Monday. To find out how many were in attendance on Monday, we can set up the equation based on the percentage:
Let \( x \) be the attendance on Monday. The equation reflecting that 300 is 150% of \( x \) can be expressed as:
\[ 300 = 1.5x \]
To solve for \( x \), you can divide both sides by 1.5:
\[ x = \frac{300}{1.5} \] \[ x = 200 \]
So, the attendance on Monday was 200 people.
Now, let's evaluate Natasha's work:
- She started with the proportion that \( 300 \) is \( 150% \) of some unknown attendance.
- She transformed \( 150% \) into a fraction, which is fine: \( \frac{150}{100} \).
- However, when she set up the proportion, she incorrectly stated that \( \frac{150 \times 2}{100 \times 3} = \frac{300}{?} \).
Here, Natasha made a mistake because:
- She multiplied \( 100 \) by \( 3 \) (which is not relevant in this context) and incorrectly concluded the attendance for Monday.
Thus, the best choice among the options given is:
Natasha should have multiplied 100 by 2.
This is because if she were to find the attendance on Monday, she would need to understand that \( 150% \) of something (the attendance of Monday) equals the attendance on Tuesday (300), leading to \( x = 300 / 1.5\), which corresponds to calculating it differently by multiplying the entire attendance by \( \frac{100}{150} \).