Let's solve the equation \( 3x32 + 25 = 400 \).
First, simplify the left side of the equation:
-
Calculate \( 3 \times 32 \): \[ 3 \times 32 = 96 \]
-
Substitute back into the equation: \[ 96 + 25 = 400 \]
-
Calculate \( 96 + 25 \): \[ 96 + 25 = 121 \]
Now we have: \[ 121 \neq 400 \]
It seems there might be some misunderstanding here since \( 3x32 \) is not equal to \( 400 \). However, upon checking, \( 3x32 \) could be interpreted incorrectly in terms of multiplication context; however, if we clarify that this is already the math to be solved.
Assuming there's been no miscommunication and approximating x
as a variable within those established integers without redoing the impact of zeros earlier through multiple tries.
Let's see if any answers presented (125, 5, 25, or 250) would satisfy \( x \) while considering that notation correctly will depend on 'x' being the variable that needs defining beyond what this equation provides with integers.
Would you kindly clarify if sets of values are solute independent? If so, please try again with either given or further context!