Question

Function f models the population, in thousands of a city 1 year after 1930. Is the average rate of change of f from t = 0 to t = 70 a good way to describe the population change of the city over that time period?

a. Yes, Near 1930, the average rate of change was much less than 14 thousand people per year. Approaching year 2000, the average rate of change was much greater than 14 thousand people per year. So 14 thousand is the exact amount every year.
b. No, Near 2000, the average rate of change was much less than 14 thousand people per year. Approaching year 1930, the average rate of change was much greater than 14 thousand people per year.
c. No, Near 1930, the average rate of change was much less than 14 thousand people per year. Approaching year 2000, the average rate of change was much greater than 14 thousand people per year.
d. No, it is impossible to determine an average rate of change by looking at a graph.

Answer 1

No, Near 1930, the average rate of change was much less than 14 thousand people per year. Approaching year 2000, the average rate of change was much greater than 14 thousand people per year. Therefore, 14 thousand is not the exact amount of population change every year.

Step-by-step explanation:

No, Near 1930, the average rate of change was much less than 14 thousand people per year. Approaching year 2000, the average rate of change was much greater than 14 thousand people per year. Therefore, 14 thousand is not the exact amount of population change every year. This means that the average rate of change of f from t = 0 to t = 70 is not a good way to describe the population change of the city over that time period.