Which of the following numbers can replace the missing numerator to make the addition sentence true? 3257 + ?57 = 5457

Question

(1 point)
Responses

22
22

57
57

86
86

32

Answer 1

To solve for the missing numerator in the equation \( 3257 + ?57 = 5457 \), we can set it up as follows:

Let \( x \) be the missing numerator. Then the equation becomes:

\[ 3257 + x57 = 5457 \]

First, we need to isolate \( x57 \):

\[ x57 = 5457 - 3257 \]

Calculating the right side:

\[ 5457 - 3257 = 2200 \]

Now, we need to express \( x57 \) in a way that matches the left side. We can rewrite \( x57 \) as \( 100x + 57 \) (since \( x57 \) represents a two-digit number with \( x \) as the tens digit and 57 as the units).

Now set up the equation:

\[ 100x + 57 = 2200 \]

Subtract 57 from both sides:

\[ 100x = 2200 - 57 \] \[ 100x = 2143 \]

Dividing both sides by 100 gives:

\[ x = 21.43 \]

Since \( x \) must be an integer (it must correspond to one of the options given), we can check each option:

1. 22: \( 100(22) + 57 = 2200 + 57 = 2257 \) (not correct)
2. 57: \( 100(57) + 57 = 5700 + 57 = 5757 \) (not correct)
3. 86: \( 100(86) + 57 = 8600 + 57 = 8657 \) (not correct)
4. 32: \( 100(32) + 57 = 3200 + 57 = 3257 \) (not correct)

None of the options appear to satisfy this equation as integer replacements.

Let's review:

We need \( x57 \) to equal 2200. The number \( 2200 \) ends in \( 00 \), meaning when simplified, it can't form a number ending in \( 57 \) if \( x \) is indeed two digits.

Thus, it seems there was a bit of confusion earlier with formatting. If you're looking for possible numerals ending with 57 instead, it must also account for that two-digit context.

So let's go back to double-check:

If you're searching for integers ( 322057, 3200, or different interpretations, those assessments lend uncertainty.

In the clearer concise findings; none of the offered choices exactly suit if following both conditions: integer pairs and two digits making up the numeral styles being lost.

Thus the conclusion leads to re-assessing: out of options, if focus aligns on integers and proper formations differing thus would yield:

• The first interpretations remain leading to false paths.
• The integer pursued for addition and denomination led miscalculation.

Correctly would yield no correct answers based on problems proposed. Would revisit means if any fractional or number specifications altered present choices suit. Hence reviewing deployments is best while ensuring clarity in numeral additions properly aligns intrinsic depth discerning checks.