Jalil and Victoria are each asked to solve the equation ax – c = bx + d for x. Jalil says it is not possible to isolate x because each x has a different unknown coefficient. Victoria believes there is a solution, and shows Jalil her work: ax – c = bx + d
ax – bx = d + c
x (a – b) = d + c
x = x equals StartFraction d plus c Over a minus b EndFraction.
How can Victoria justify Step 3 of her work?

answer: 298143

step-by-step explanation:

no

step-by-step explanation:

[2, 2.5)

(2.5, 3]

step-by-step explanation:

i think its these two not sure [2, 2.5)

(2.5, 3]

b) yes

step-by-step explanation:

let the statements be named as,

statement 1: if the power has been cut, then the refrigerator does not work.

statement 2: the refrigerator does not work.

conclusion: the power has been cut

now, 'law of detachment states that if we have the statements given as,

1. if p, then q.

2. p

then, we get the true statement or conclusion as q'.

thus, on comparing, we get that,

p: if the power has been cut.

q: the refrigerator does not work.

so, the argument is true by the law of detachment.