Composite question.

[onlyfknhuman]

[IMG]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/892/aaaaio0.png[/img]
[IMG]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/aaaaio0.png/1/w640.png[/img]

How to do this me very confused i feel like shit in the head.

Dam it.  :uglystupid2:

I tried forming one equation... but its so long and i dont think that its the right method since its an exam 1 question. as it would take a considerable amount of time.

[Mao]

most probably, this won't be assessed in exam 1.

but it's a variation of addition of coordinates, where this time you are multiplying them together.

the domain will be [-3,4].
the shape of the graph would be similar to g(x), with the same x intercepts
on the left, from about -2.5 to -3, the graph is below g(x), since f(x) is smaller than 1. g(x) and the new graph would intersect about x=-2.5
everywhere else, just treat it as a kind of bloated vertical dilation with maximums shifted slightly to the right, since f(x)>1 and increasing

[Lulu]

Umm its really just a matter of deducing points from the graph. Try guessing points and multiplying the two values together.

- You know that something multiplied by zero will always equal zero, so anywhere on the graph where there is an x-intercept, h(x) will also have an intercept.

- Also, a negative value multiplied by a positive value will always result in a negative value, so you can see that the right side of the graph will be below the x-axis.

- In this case, it's obvious that the values of h(x) will be greater (or more negative) than the other two graphs, as the product of two numbers makes it 'bigger'.

the graph will only exist within the domains of both of the other graphs too.

Does that help at all? it's kind of hard to explain and there might be a better method out there

[onlyfknhuman]

most probably, this won't be assessed in exam 1.

but it's a variation of addition of coordinates, where this time you are multiplying them together.

the domain will be [-3,4].
the shape of the graph would be similar to g(x), with the same x intercepts
on the left, from about -2.5 to -3, the graph is below g(x), since f(x) is smaller than 1. g(x) and the new graph would intersect about x=-2.5
everywhere else, just treat it as a kind of bloated vertical dilation with maximums shifted slightly to the right, since f(x)>1 and increasing

Yeah i can visualize it now, makes sense

Fck your a legend man.

And thanks LuLu