Below is the graph of f ′(x), the derivative of f(x), and has x-intercepts at x = -3, x = 1 and x = 2. there are horizontal tangents at x = -1.5 and x = 1.5. which of the following statements is true?

1. f has an inflection point at x = -1.5.
2. f is increasing on the interval from x = -3.2 to x = -4.5.
3. f has a relative minimum at x = 1.5.
4. all of these are true.

1. f has an inflection point at x = -1.5

Explanation:

Let's analyze each statement given.

1. f has an inflection point at x = -1.5 --> TRUE

An inflection point is a point in which the function f(x) changes concavity: this means that the first derivative of a function has a relative minimum or maximum, and therefore the second derivative is zero, .

In this case, we see that at the point

x = -1.5

The first derivative is flat: this means that at this point, the second derivative is zero, so this is an inflection point.

2. f is increasing on the interval from x = -3.2 to x = -4.5. --> FALSE.

We simply don't know this: in fact, we cannot see the graph of the derivative between -4.5 and -3.2, therefore we don't know if the function is increasing or not.

3. f has a relative minimum at x = 1.5 --> FALSE.

A function has a relative minimum at a point if the first derivative is zero at that point:

and moreover, the derivative is negative on the left of the point and positive on the right of the point.

This is not the case: in fact, we see that at x = 1.5 the first derivative is not zero, therefore this statement is not true.

i do agree with robert moses’ statements about wiping out cities that are an “impediment to new growth”. in order to have a positive community, the city must continue to grow either in terms of size or economics. therefore wiping out cities that restrict growth benefits the overall society and all the people living in it. similar to a social contract, i believe that if a person was to live in a community they must sacrifice some of their rights, in this case property, for the overall good of the people. as long as these people living in the cities are reimbursed and the purpose of wiping out the cities is to serve the public, there is no problem with robert moses’ core idea.