posted by .

complete the following proof.
given: 5 -2/3x=1
proff: x=6

  • geometry -

    The word "proof" does not apply here.
    You want to say:
    solve 5 - 2/3x=1

    The way you typed it ...
    multiply each term by 3
    15 - 2x = 3
    -2x = -12
    divide by -2
    x = 6

Respond to this Question

First Name
School Subject
Your Answer

Similar Questions

  1. geometry

    1)given-AB=CD,CD=EF prove-AB-EF (in 5 steps that show why it is corect; i.e two-column proof) 2)Given-<2=<3, <4=<5 prove-<1 is supplementay to <6 (in 3 steps, with the two column proof) TWO-COLUMN PROOF LOOKS LIKE …
  2. Geometry

    Complete the indirect proof. Given: Rectangle JKLM has an area of 36 square centimeters. Side JK is at least 4 centimeters long. Prove: KL<=9 centimeters
  3. geometry

    complete the two-column proof given: x/6+2=15 prove: x=78
  4. geometry

    Supply the missing reasons to complete the proof Given: B congruent E and BC congruent to EC Prove: AC congruent to DC
  5. geometry

    Construction: The midpoint of a line segment can be constructed. Theorem: If the consecutive midpoints of the sides of a parallelogram are joined in order, then the quadrilateral formed from the midpoints is a parallelogram. Write …
  6. Geometry

    52. Complete two column proof. Given: x/6+2=15 Prove: x=78 x/6+2=15 A:______ x/6=13 B:______ x=78 C:_______
  7. Geometry

    <2=<4, m<2= 110 degrees Given m∠2 = m∠4 Definition of congruent angles m∠4 = 110ยบ Complete the 2 column proof
  8. Geometry

    I'm not sure how to complete a two-column proof: Given <2=<4,m<2=100 Prove:m<3=70 All i have so far: <2=<4, m<2=100 : Given M<2 =m <4 :definition of congruent angles M<4=110 : ?
  9. Geometry

    Write a two-column proof. Given: 7y=8x-14; y=6 Prove: x=7 I need help making a two-column proof with the statements and the reasons, please! Thank you! ( This is what I have so far) Statements | Reasons 1. 7y=8x-14;y=6 | Given 2. 7(6)=8x-14 …
  10. Geometry

    Discuss the differences between a coordinate geometry proof and a proof method that does not require coordinate geometry. When would it be appropriate to use a coordinate proof rather than another proof method?

More Similar Questions