Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: 9
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:We seek a neat, alternating multiplier/divisor pattern and then detect the unique violation in the sequence.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Compute consecutive ratios to test the alternating rule: 108→54 (×0.5), 54→36 (×2/3), 36→18 (×0.5), next should be 18×(2/3)=12, and so on.
Step-by-Step Solution:
108 → 54: ÷2 ✔54 → 36: ×(2/3) ✔36 → 18: ÷2 ✔18 → 9: (given) should be ×(2/3) → 12 ✖Continuing correctly: 12 → 8 (÷2) and 8 → 16/3 (×2/3), but given tail 9, 6, 4 approximates a later adjustment.Verification / Alternative check:Directly applying the discovered alternation, only the term at the 5th position should be 12; therefore 9 is the inconsistent value.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:54, 36, 18 match the alternation before the error; the final terms often look close but are consequences of carrying the wrong intermediate value.
Common Pitfalls:Mistaking a propagated downstream drift for the original error; always fix the first mismatch.
Final Answer:9 is the wrong term (should be 12 under the alternating ÷2, ×2/3 rule).
Discussion & Comments