To determine the amount spent on each package of ramen in Maggie's purchase, we start by breaking down the information given:
- Maggie spent a total of $9.
- Each box of macaroni and cheese costs $1.25.
- She bought macaroni and cheese and ramen, taking advantage of a sale on 3 of an item.
Let's denote:
- \( x \) as the cost of one package of ramen.
- \( m \) as the number of boxes of macaroni and cheese she bought.
Given that each box of macaroni and cheese costs $1.25, the total spent on macaroni and cheese would be \( 1.25m \).
Assuming she purchased 3 boxes of ramen (the context suggests this since the sale is for 3 items), her total cost can then be represented as: \[ 1.25m + 3x = 9 \]
However, we need to relate the number of boxes of macaroni and cheese to the total spent. If she purchased exactly 3 boxes of macaroni and cheese, we have:
- \( m = 3 \)
Thus, substituting \( m \) into the equation gives us: \[ 1.25(3) + 3x = 9 \] \[ 3.75 + 3x = 9 \]
We can rearrange this equation to isolate \( x \): \[ 3x = 9 - 3.75 \] \[ 3x = 5.25 \] \[ x = \frac{5.25}{3} \] \[ x = 1.75 \]
None of the provided responses correctly reflect this setup, but if we go back to expressions a bit, the equation would be in line with solving for \( x \) in a structure like:
Correct Equation (not listed in your responses): \[ 3x + 3.75 = 9 \]
Based on the choices you provided, the closest to our setup would be: 1.25(x + 3) = 9
This option, however, would not be correct for solving for \( x \) under the given arrangements of purchasing 3 boxes of ramen, as it inaccurately treats the relationship between ramen and mac and cheese.
If Maggie bought 3 packages of ramen and paid a total of $9 while macaroni and cheese was bought at $1.25 for however many she'd purchased, the right structured form should resemble 3x + 3.75 = 9 based on original implication.
To summarize, none of the options listed accurately identify the correct construction for determining the cost of each package of ramen based on the total expenditure. The insight gives us the correct approach, favoring a revised equation as discussed that you'd resolve directly from pragmatic algebra based on given expenditures.