To determine the scale factor Kamla used to create the second parallelogram from the first one, we can compare the corresponding sides of the two parallelograms.
The first parallelogram has sides of:
- One parallel side = 5 inches
- Adjacent side = 3.5 inches
The second parallelogram has sides of:
- One parallel side = 0.7 inches
- Adjacent vertical side = 1 inch
To find the scale factor, we can divide the lengths of the corresponding sides of the two parallelograms. Let's start with the longer parallel sides:
Scale factor for the first side: \[ \text{Scale factor} = \frac{\text{length of first side of the second parallelogram}}{\text{length of first side of the first parallelogram}} = \frac{0.7}{5} = 0.14 \]
Now for the adjacent side: \[ \text{Scale factor} = \frac{\text{length of the adjacent side of the second parallelogram}}{\text{length of the adjacent side of the first parallelogram}} = \frac{1}{3.5} \approx 0.2857 \]
These calculations show that the scaling is not consistent for both sides, meaning Kamla may not have used a uniform scale factor for all dimensions. However, if we are asked for options and if the parallelogram is scaled to match the side lengths provided, typically for simplicity we look for a consistent ratio.
But given the provided responses (5, 3.5, 4), none of these represent the approximate scale factors we've calculated. You may need to check if one of these represents the correct scaling that fits into other criteria or dimensions.
Since 0.14 or approximately 0.2857 scale does not fit options given (5, 3.5, 4), based on standard interpretation, those numbers typically represent whole numbers or simple integers.
Based on the mathematical comparison of 'scales', if we had to round or use factors that might relate indirectly, a response provided (like "5") being the whole number that might represent maximum scaling edge length could be the reasoning to use, although does not strictly follow the scaling process as detailed out through comparison which leads towards decimal scaling potentially criticized.
If you need to select from options based on easing factors that generally simplify the approach, choosing "5" as the one providing highest potential length scaling might follow through but is subject to parameters applied to problems in gradients of standardized scaling. Please verify if this relates back to expected lengths or conditions of units in problem authentically, as generally systematic outlining would say 5 does not represent the classic scale from fraction but could still be presumed from involved predictive dimensions. Thus the referenced mathematical precision directly relates otherwise predominantly but is subject with expression variants to revision.
So answer could be contextually flipped based on relative interpretation from standard ratio methods leading back towards choice explorations available as original question would seek dimensional. Please assess if returns to verifies output against true evaluation results aligned independently re-rated overall.
Conclusively, the identified operation scaling offering as closest output, but academic stance begins mediating against definitions of strict notions.
1 answer