To find \(-2.35 - 6.32\) using the concept of additive inverses, we can rewrite the expression involving the additive inverse of \(6.32\).
The additive inverse of \(6.32\) is \(-6.32\). Therefore:
\[ -2.35 - 6.32 \text{ can be rewritten as } -2.35 + (-6.32) \]
However, this doesn't directly match any of the options you provided. But we can represent the original expression as follows:
\[ -2.35 - 6.32 = -2.35 + (-6.32) \]
Thus, the correct option that accurately uses the concept of the additive inverse in a way to find \(-2.35 - 6.32\) is:
A. \(-2.35 - (-6.32)\)
This choice effectively shows the use of the additive inverse as subtracting a negative is equivalent to addition. But to clarify, the expression "using additive inverses" technically means we are rewriting it explicitly. The most direct representation, however, is indeed \( -2.35 + (-6.32) \), which is not listed.
For the clearer connection based on the question's options, the answer could be viewed as:
D. -2.35 + 6.32 (effectively demonstrating additive inverse in another context).
These considerations suggest option A conforms to an interpretation of additive inverses more accurately.
1 answer