Hello, I would believe it to be 11, if you do various subtractions and additions of the numbers that are listed you get 11,
9, 5, 2, 4, x, 24, 35, 37
9 + 2 = 11
5 + 4 + 2 = 11
35 - 24 = 11
37 - 2 - 24 = 11
24 - 9 - 4 = 11
The list keeps going.

so we found out the answer but had a pointless argument just because?

yup sounds good

Sorry for such the late answer but I think I figured it out! The answer is 12!
I was messing around with my calculator and remembered how to do this with a calculator
So it is Quadratic Regression.
f(x)= -1.25x^4+1.917x^3-7.875x^2+8.083x+7
confusing right? I know

So heres how I figured it out

1- List #s convert them to coordinate points.
2- Put in stat function, ( don't type (5,x) because we don't know the point)
3- Under Calc do Quart Reg and store the equation in Y1
4- Check the table, make sure all the numbers match up
5- The Value for 5 shows up as 12

9 - 5 - 2 - 4 - ( 12 ) - 24 - 35 - 37

X=14

Wow this is a tough one.
Trying to get my brother to figure it out he's a math genius.
I'll explain it to you if he figures it out

Well you guys make good arguements, IDK. Could've been a typo on the test

Swimmer1929
Here, ladies and gentlemen is a fine example of a boaster. The boaster species tends to "boast" to others about things they are currently learning in school by attempting to mindlessly apply the material to EVERY POSSIBLE CONVERSATION. I, myself, cannot see any sort of relation between what you just stated and a simple problem that was stated by the OP. Maybe it's just me... o_O =P

Your patronization of me doesn't really help the OP. I found an answer, and he didn't understand it. So, I explained it to him, stating what I did and clarifying that the "nonsense" (which did look confusing due to the fact that you can't add superscripts in posts), was a simple 4th-degree polynomial. I then went on to agree with the OP that it's not a problem anyone could solve in the time stated and without the use of a calculator, and that the level of math used does fit the requirements.

This is a fine example of the limitations of text-based communication. You misinterpreted my tone because I can't really show it using text, and therefore took what I was saying the wrong way. There's not much you and I can do about that, but, well, it happens.

TheShadbusher

Xx_CR33P3R_xX12
While I honestly do not understand that nonsense and its probably correct, I believe there is a simpler answer seeing as that we only had roughly 1 min per question and calculators were not allowed.

It was bound to be a regression of some sort, and, going through all sorts of regressions (quadratic, sinusoidal, logarithmic, etc.), that is the only one that fit. The R^2 value was exactly 1 (the closer R^2 is to 1 or -1, the more accurately the function fits to the data points).

It's just a simple quartic expression, calculated with a graphing calculator. However, it's not simple enough to be solved in a minute or two and without a calculator, unless you know exactly which regression to use.

That's Algebra II-level math.

Here, ladies and gentlemen is a fine example of a boaster. The boaster species tends to "boast" to others about things they are currently learning in school by attempting to mindlessly apply the material to EVERY POSSIBLE CONVERSATION. I, myself, cannot see any sort of relation between what you just stated and a simple problem that was stated by the OP. Maybe it's just me... o_O =P

Xx_CR33P3R_xX12
My point exactly, even though it is Algebra 2, Definitely not solvable (like you said) without a calculator in approximately 1 min

I highly doubt that there's a simpler rule to the series/sequence, though. If there is, it wouldn't be a rule you could find in a minute or two without a calculator. The numbers in the series/sequence vary too much for the problem to be solvable in the allotted time.

TheShadbusher

Xx_CR33P3R_xX12
While I honestly do not understand that nonsense and its probably correct, I believe there is a simpler answer seeing as that we only had roughly 1 min per question and calculators were not allowed.

It was bound to be a regression of some sort, and, going through all sorts of regressions (quadratic, sinusoidal, logarithmic, etc.), that is the only one that fit. The R^2 value was exactly 1 (the closer R^2 is to 1 or -1, the more accurately the function fits to the data points).

It's just a simple quartic expression, calculated with a graphing calculator. However, it's not simple enough to be solved in a minute or two and without a calculator, unless you know exactly which regression to use.

That's Algebra II-level math.

My point exactly, even though it is Algebra 2, Definitely not solvable (like you said) without a calculator in approximately 1 min

Xx_CR33P3R_xX12
While I honestly do not understand that nonsense and its probably correct, I believe there is a simpler answer seeing as that we only had roughly 1 min per question and calculators were not allowed.

It was bound to be a regression of some sort, and, going through all sorts of regressions (quadratic, sinusoidal, logarithmic, etc.), that is the only one that fit. The R^2 value was exactly 1 (the closer R^2 is to 1 or -1, the more accurately the function fits to the data points).

It's just a simple quartic expression, calculated with a graphing calculator. However, it's not simple enough to be solved in a minute or two and without a calculator, unless you know exactly which regression to use.

That's Algebra II-level math.

Update: The list of numbers can be represented by a quartic expression, whose function is approximately:

-.125x^4 + 1.916x^3 - 7.875x^2 + 8.083x + 7

And, with that, the value of x is 12.

Hrm.. this is a hard one.. I have no idea, it seems 8 or 6 seem logical to me..

These are my guesses: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,or 24.

Also, if you do figure it out. Make sure to explain yourself, so I don't look like an idiot trying to plug in an answer where it doesn't belong. Answers without explanation will be checked and deleted if wrong.

Some extra info: This question should not be harder than Algebra 2/Geometry so don't try anything having to do with higher levels of math (Such as statistics or Calculus).

If I do end up finding the answer, I'll post it with explanation

these are guess: 8 or 18

im good at math but gosshh
this is hard.