<p>It was y = 4-x^2 and the distance from B to C was 2.5.</p>
<p>no i mean what were the answer choices? like 7.92, 8.12, etc.</p>
<p>I got 8.13 for that. The area was under the line 2.5 right, within 4-x^2 right?</p>
<p>the answer was 7.92.</p>
<p>because you take f(2.5/2) for the height</p>
<p>i did what you did and assumed that it was 2.5… :(</p>
<p>ahh i totally bombed. i’m such a slow test taker omitted 12 and who knows how many wrong. definitely taking again in march! the sad thing is that i am in calc…</p>
<p>for the trapezoid problem.
area of trapezoid= 1/2 (b1+b2)h, so 1/2 (2.5+4)*2.5. i believe, i know that whatever that turns out to be was one fo the answers.</p>
<p>8.13 was the answer</p>
<p>ah ****. 1 omit and 2 wrong for me for sure. probably still more wrong. there goes my hope of an 800… :'(</p>
<p>and no, the answer was 7.92</p>
<p>uh how do you figure</p>
<p>The height wasn’t 2.5, it was 2.4375
f(1.25)=2.4375</p>
<p>the height is f(x)=4-x^2 = f(2.5/2) = 4-(1.25)^2 = 2.43 something</p>
<p>also another question about the range</p>
<p>it was like the domain of the function is {1,2} which of the following cannot be the range</p>
<p>I put {2, 3, 4} for the range one, but idk, it was wierd.</p>
<p>Yeah it would have to be 2,3,4 cause two numbers in a domain can’t produce a range with 3 numbers (that would require one input to be linked to two outputs, which defies the definition of function)</p>
<p>eh i decided i dont even care. i didnt prepare at all, and my precalc class last year was a joke (IB Maths SL anyone?). plus, i already applied to colleges and stuff. whatever.</p>
<p>to Latency</p>
<p>“Honestly, there’s no reason for it to be the origin. By that logic, the answer should also be y=-x (y=x is symmetric about the origin, y=-x, and y=x). While none of the answers seem full-proof at this moment, y=x seems to be the least flawed.”</p>
<p>I don’t mean to be an ass man, but i think y=x is the most flawed answer… ok not the <em>most</em> flawed, but i still don’t think it’s correct. Here’s why:</p>
<p>The question said that the inverse of f(x) EQUALS f(x), this means that the two equations are the same, and are basically y=x — that is the only way they can be inverses of each other, yet still EQUAL each other. That being in mind, you can not say that line x is symmetrical across line x, that makes no sense. Therefore, you can not say that the equation y=x is symmetrical across the line y=x — IT IS THE LINE!</p>
<p>Why I chose origin… you can rotate the graph about the origin and it looks the same (i.e. its the same right side up and upside down, or y=x and -y=-x). That is basically the same as y=x, except that for this problem it makes A LOT MORE sense than y=x for the answer…</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but that’s my theory, and it’s definitely debatable. But i still say origin :)</p>
<p>and yet here you are on cc trying to figure out the answers… who says you don’t care?</p>
<p>do you remember the actual question, because i don’t think that “inverse of f(x) EQUALS f(x)” was stated directly like you did.</p>
<p>more out of curiosity than anything. why does everyone on this website have to be such an a**hole?</p>
<p>ChaoticOrder, I’m pretty sure it did, but i don’t remember the exact question</p>
<p>Yes, it did state that the function is equal to its inverse. However, 100Canadian, my argument still stands. Even if it’s not y=x, there’s no reason for it to be the origin instead of y=-x (y=x is symmetric about the origin and about y=-x). Also, I think y=x IS symmetric about the line y=x, even though they are the same line. I guess the definition of symmetric needs to be narrowed down.</p>
<p>Think about this, a tilted parabola that has the line of symmetry y=x. This parabola would be the same as its inverse, and the only line of symmetry both would share is the line y=x. However, this is flawed because said parabola would not be a function (due to vertical line test). But, even so, the answer y=x seems more likely than all the rest.</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying with your example, but it’s not a function. I dont know, but this question is definitely flawed.</p>
<p>I guess it all comes down to whether or not “y=x IS symmetric about the line y=x” as you said, but i personally say no. Maybe we should tell collegeboard it’s flawed lmao, except they’ll kill us haha</p>
<p>EDIT: actually you know I see what you’re saying, the origin is the same as y=-x so it can’t be either of those. But still, I don’t think it can be y=x… but it probably is. That question is flawed</p>