If we use Mathematical Induction to prove that 3n≥2n[math]3^n \ge 2 n for all positive integers n[math]n, then the inductive step will be one of the following.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

This question asks about the inductive step used to prove 3^n ≥ 2n for all positive integers n. I'll evaluate each option in turn to see which one aligns with the typical induction pattern.

Option 1: Assuming that 3^k ≥ 2k, prove 3^{k-1} ≥ 2(k-1).
- Analysis: An induction step should move from n = k to n = k+1 (or from k to k+1 in the standard forward direction). Proving something about 3^{k-1} in terms of k-1 would move in the opposite direction, essentially stepping backwards in n. This does not establish the statement for n = k+1 based on the hypothesis for n = k, so this option is not a valid inductive step. It misaligns the exponent and the linear term with the forward progression of n.

Option 2: Assuming that 3^k ≥ 2k, prove 3^{k+1} ≥ 2(k+1).
- Analysis: This is the canonical inductive step. We assume the statement holds at n = k and show it holds at n = k+1 by deriving 3^{k+1} ≥ 2(k+1) from 3^k ≥ 2k, typically by multiplying both sides by 3 and then comparing to 2k+2, using simple algebra or inequalities. This directly advances n by 1 and preserves the required form, making it the correct inductive step.

Option 3: Assuming that 3^k ≥ 2k, prove 3^{k}+1 ≥ 2k+1.
- Analysis: The expression 3^{k}+1 is not the next term in the exponential sequence; the next term should be 3^{k+1}. This option attempts to tweak the left-hand side without properly increasing the exponent, so it does not establish the needed inductive progression from k to k+1 for the inequality 3^n ≥ 2n. Therefore, this is not the valid inductive step.

Option 4: Prove 3 ≥ 2.
- Analysis: While 3 ≥ 2 is true, it has nothing to do with the induction step for the statement involving 3^n and 2n for all positive integers n. Induction requires a relation between n = k and n = k+1, not a standalone truth about constants. This option fails to connect to the inductive framework and is irrelevant to proving the general inequality.

In summary, option 2 matches the standard inductive pattern by deducing the n = k+1 case from the n = k hypothesis, while the other options either move the index in the wrong direction, alter the expression improperly, or disregard the inductive structure entirely.

MATH 100 (LEC ER1 Winter 2025) Pre-class quiz 04. Due January 15 at 11:00 pm

If we use Mathematical Induction to prove that 3n≥2n[math]3^n \ge 2 n for all positive integers n[math]n, then the inductive step will be one of the following.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler