To determine which scenario best describes the graph, we need to consider the starting amount and the rate of increase in savings for each option:
-
Juan starts with $30 in savings and increases his savings amount by $5 each week.
This would result in a graph that starts at $30 and increases by $5 each week. -
Juan starts with $5 in savings and increases his savings amount by $30 each week.
This would start at $5 and show a steep increase of $30 each week. -
Juan starts with $30 in savings and increases his savings amount by $1 each week.
This would start at $30 and steadily rise by $1 each week. -
Juan saves $30 per week.
This would show a linear increase starting from $0 in savings (if we consider the total savings from week one).
To identify the best scenario, we analyze how the increases and starting points align with the graph's behavior. Based on the context that each option is relevant to a weekly savings routine, if the graph consistently rises from an initial point with equal intervals, the accurate scenario would be:
- If the graph starts at $30 and has a consistent height with a certain slope per week, the option "Juan starts with $30 in savings and increases his savings amount by $5 each week" or "Juan starts with $30 in savings and increases his savings amount by $1 each week" would fit.
Without the graph, if we consider the common options where a $30 savings could mean a steady increase of $30 per week overall, the last option "Juan saves $30 per week" could fit too—especially if savings are added cumulatively each week.
In conclusion, based on typical interpretations of financial graphs, the strongest match might be the first or last option but without visual context, I would lean towards "Juan saves $30 per week" if the increase matches the savings additions overall.
3 answers