Solve for p: 3q= 5/6s(3z/t+5m/p)
so is the problem \[3q = \frac{5}{6s}(\frac{3z}{t} + \frac{5m}{p})\]
Yes
The first step is distributive property but everything is confusing after
Don't use distributive property first.
Okay thanks So what's first?
ok... this is a long question.... mutliply both sides of the equation by 6s so \[18qs = 5(\frac{3z}{t} + \frac{5m}{p})\] now divide both sides by 5 \[\frac{18qs}{5} = \frac{3z}{t} + \frac{5m}{p}\] subtract 3z/t from both sides of the equation \[\frac{18qs}{5} - \frac{3z}{t} = \frac{5m}{p}\] hope this makes sense so far
1 sec pls
the next step I'd recommend is put everything on the left hand side over a common denominator... just makes it easier...
Then cancel out?
well start with the common denominator it will be 5t \[\frac{18qs}{5} \times \frac{t}{t} - \frac{3z}{t} \times \frac{5}{5} = \frac{5m}{p}\] so you get \[\frac{18 qst - 15z}{5t} = \frac{5m}{p}\] does that make sense..?
Where does t/t come from?
well its equal to 1... and you are using it to get the common denominator of 5t
happy to go on..?
Yes..
Ok I see
ok... here is a short cut... take the reciprocal of both fractions... \[\frac{5t}{(18qst - 15z)} = \frac{p}{5m}\] does that make sense...?
Yeah
It can't be reduced?
last step... multiply both sides of the equation by 5m \[\frac{5t \times 5m}{(18qst - 15z)} = p\] I'll let you finish it off... please go back and check the steps.
Can 5t be cancelled out?
25mt
nope... because 5t needs to be a factor of both terms in the denominator the only common factor in the denominator is 3 the 2nd part of the denominator, 15z, doesn't comtain a t and 18qst doesn't have 5 as a factor...
so the final answer is \[p = \frac{25mt}{(18qst - 15z)}\]
I just found the answer Distributive property would've been easier then multiplied the COmmon demon. by 3q 18pstq=15pz+25mt P=25mt/18stq-15z
Same answer but shorter
well its the same answer... and if you know fractions then the 1st step could have been divide both sides by 5/6s.... which is the same as multiplying by the reciprocal...
Either way, wouldn't it be easier using distribute property?
Shorter and simple
hope it all makes sense... good luck
ehhh... distributive property seems like more work, since you first have to distribute the 5/6s... it's already factored out, and distributing is undoing the work that was done to factor it out in the first place.
I appreciate both of your help but i understand it so much better when I distribute Although I never understood the problem until it was explained, thank you
Fair enough, you can do it whichever way you prefer, distributing is still a valid way to re-arrange it.
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!