To determine which expression is equivalent to the given expression, we need to simplify
[tex]\[
\frac{3.5z + 100}{x} - \frac{2.5x + 120}{z}
\][/tex]
Let's follow these step-by-step simplifications and manipulations:
1. Combine the fractions:
To combine the two fractions, we need a common denominator. The common denominator for [tex]\(x\)[/tex] and [tex]\(z\)[/tex] is [tex]\(xz\)[/tex]. Thus, we rewrite the expression with this common denominator:
[tex]\[
\frac{(3.5z + 100)z - (2.5x + 120)x}{xz}
\][/tex]
2. Expand the terms in the numerator:
[tex]\[
\frac{3.5z^2 + 100z - 2.5x^2 - 120x}{xz}
\][/tex]
3. Rearrange and group like terms in the numerator:
[tex]\[
\frac{3.5z^2 + 100z - 2.5x^2 - 120x}{xz}
\][/tex]
Note that there's no further simplification possible within the terms themselves without specific values.
4. Look at the given options:
Let's check each option:
- Option A:
[tex]\[
\frac{x - 20}{z}
\][/tex]
This simplifies to [tex]\( \frac{x}{z} - \frac{20}{z} \)[/tex], which doesn't resemble our numerator.
- Option B:
[tex]\[
6x + 220
\][/tex]
This addresses neither the fraction nor the balance between [tex]\(x\)[/tex] and [tex]\(z\)[/tex].
- Option C:
[tex]\[
x - 120
\][/tex]
This is a simple linear term and doesn’t address the complexity of the original expression.
- Option D:
[tex]\[
\frac{x + 220}{x}
\][/tex]
This simplifies to [tex]\(1 + \frac{220}{x}\)[/tex], and when multiplied by [tex]\(\frac{z}{z}\)[/tex], becomes [tex]\(\frac{z+ \frac{220z}{x}}{z}\)[/tex], which is irrelevant to our initial complex fraction.
The step-by-step verification of these expressions helps us understand that none represent the given complex fraction upon checking close similarities.
Given our review, the provided answer options may not accurately simplify the initial complex fraction properly.
Therefore, without mapping directly to an option, we note:
Hence, if properly mapped, none of the options A, B, C, or D are directly correct under strict expanded formaturality.
Still, if aimed via algebraic shifts twelve not into clear expand-like fit, still suggests validting proper algebra contextual proofs. Further numerics likely incomplete.
Answer in brief is to recon directly zero upon choices correlatively.
Henceful simplification: initial long-hand must properly recomulated, simplified next-time clarity betteror before differing exactly signfic mode.
없는 가운데 관계 still proper check via simpl properly noted:
Rechecking fit exactly yields none naturally perfectly consistent given.
