College Algebra, Chapter 2, 2.5, Section 2.5, Problem 48

According to a scientist, the rate $r$ at which a disease spreads in a population of size $P$ is jointly proportional to the number $x$ of infected people and the number $P-x$ who are not infected. An infection erupts in a small town that has population $P =5000$.
a.) Write an equation that expresses $r$ as a function of $x$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
r &= k x ( P - x ) && \text{Model}\\
\\
r &= k x (5000 -x) && \text{Substitute } P = 5000
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$




b.) Compare the rate of spread of this infection when 10 people are infected to the rate of spread when 1000 people are infected. Which rate is larger? By what factor?

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
r_1 &= k(10)(5000 -10)\\
\\
r_1 &= k (49900)\\
\\
k &= \frac{r_1}{49900} && \Longleftarrow \text{Equation 1}\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
r_2 &= k(100)(5000-100)\\
\\
r_2 &= k(49000)\\
\\
k &= \frac{r_2}{49000} && \Longleftarrow \text{Equation 2}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

By using Equations 1 and 2

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{r_1}{49900} &= \frac{r_2}{49000} && \text{Multiply both sides by } 49900\\
\\
r_1 &= \frac{499}{490} r_2\\
\\
r_1 &= 1.02 r_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

It shows that the first rate is larger by a factor of $0.02$

c.) Calculate the rate of spread when the entire population is infected. Why does this answer make intuitive sense?
When the entire population is infected, then $x = 5000$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
r &= k x(P-x)\\
\\
r &= (5000)(5000-5000)\\
\\
r &= 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

It shows that there is no need for the disease to spread on since the entire population is already infected.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In “Fahrenheit 451,” what does Faber mean by “Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents”?

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.6, Section 3.6, Problem 34

What was the effect of World War II on African Americans?