Hi Theeldertwin,Your instinct is almost right, and you've spotted something real: rounding to the nearest hundredth
does leave
two digits after the decimal. So the result looks like 3.1
?. The catch is the word
"could" in the question - it's asking what the tenths digit
can possibly be for
some value of n, not what it always is.
Here's where your step 3.1(n+1) quietly breaks down. That formula is fine
as long as adding 1 to n stays a single digit. But n is a digit from
0 to
9, so look at the one case where it doesn't:
- If
n = 9, the number is
3.195.
- The thousandths digit is
5, so we round the hundredths
9 up.
- But
9 + 1 = 10 - it can't sit in one place. It
carries: the hundredths becomes
0 and the
1 rolls into the tenths.
- So
3.195 rounds to
3.20 - and now the tenths digit is
2.
That single carry is the whole trick. For every other n (
0 through
8) the tenths stays
1, which isn't an answer choice. Only n =
9 produces a listed value, so
B (2) is the answer.
Lock the idea in with a couple of quick ones:- Round
2.96 to the nearest tenth - does the units digit stay
2, or does it become
3?
- Round
4.998 to the nearest hundredth - what happens to
both digits in front?
Same mechanism each time: when the digit you're rounding up is a
9, it resets to
0 and bumps the next digit left. That carry is exactly what your 3.1(n+1) shortcut was hiding.
Answer: BTheeldertwin
Hi Bunuel, shouldn't rounded to the nearest hundredth have 2 digits after decimal? Shouldn't the number be 3.1n or 3.1(n+1)? In both the cases the tenth digit should be 1 right?