Why Does the Answer Key Give 188.1 for This Significant Figures Calculation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a significant figures calculation where the user arrives at an answer of 188.2, while the answer key states it is 188.1. The user emphasizes the importance of not rounding off until the final step to maintain accuracy in significant figures. They demonstrate their calculations, showing that intermediate results should retain precision until the end. The conversation concludes with a clarification on the proper application of significant figures in calculations.
Speedking96
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Add the following:

(2.526/3.1) + (0.470/0.623) + (80.705/0.4326)


2. The attempt at a solution

= (2.526/3.1) + (0.470/0.623) + (80.705/0.4326)
= (0.81) + (0.754) + (186.6)
= 188.2

I have calculated the answer (using sig figs) to be 188.2, however, the answer key says it is 188.1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't round off until the last step.
 
Doc Al said:
Don't round off until the last step.

= (2.526/3.1) + (0.470/0.623) + (80.705/0.4326)
= (0.8148) + (0.7544) + (186.55)
= 188.1192

If I don't apply sig figs to each step, then how would I know how many sig figs there would be in the final answer?
 
You can know how many sig figs in each step and still not round off until the end.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Doc Al said:
You can know how many sig figs in each step and still not round off until the end.

Ok. I see. Thank you.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top