Hillary observes that if f(x) = 2x, then the graphs of 2f(x) and f(x) + 1 both have a y-intercept of 2.

does this mean that multiplying f(x) by 2 and adding 1 to f(x) transform the graph in the same way?

a. no. they transform the point (0, f(0)) in the same way but not the other points on the graph.

b. yes. they transform the point (0, f(0)) in the same way, so they will transform all other points in the same way.

c. yes. all exponential graphs look the same and have the same shape.

d. yes. all exponential graphs look the same and have the same shape.

No. They transform the point (0, f(0)) in the same way but not the other points on the graph.

Step-by-step explanation:

Given:

f(x) = 2x

Let the coordinate of the point be ( a , b )

Therefore :

2(fx) means that the value of y will be multiplied by 2 , that is

2f(x) = ( a , 2b)

This means that the graph of the function is stretch to the y - axis by 2

f(x) + 1 means that 1 will be added to the value of y , that is

This means that the graph of the function move upward to the y - axis by 1

f(x) + 1 = (a , b + 1)

This shows that they transform the point (0, f(0)) in the same way.

Take for example the graph of 3f(x) and the graph of f(x) - 5

The graph of 3f(x) stretch to the y - axis by 3 when the graph of f(x) - 5 move downward to the y axis by 5 .

We can therefore conclude that

if f(x) = 2x, then the graphs of 2f(x) and f(x) + 1 both have a y-intercept of 2.They transform the point (0, f(0)) in the same way but not the other points on the graph.

i would have to say it is c.

it has changed from the width and the height.

step-by-step explanation: