Introduction to Logarithms: Free Response
5 questions in parts, 63 points in total. Work each one out on paper, taking a hint if you get stuck. When you have an answer, reveal the answer to check it, and the full solution only if you still want it. The rubric is there so you can mark your own work.
-
1. Evaluating a logarithm, and what its base is not allowed to be . Foundational, 16 points. Question 1 of 5.
Every logarithm answers one question: this base raised to what power gives that number? The base itself is restricted before the question is even asked. This question checks a direct evaluation and then checks the restriction on the base itself.
- Part A.
Evaluate and , asking the defining question each time. Give exact values, not decimal approximations.
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 5 points
- Part B.
Three numbers are proposed as the base of a logarithm: , , and . For each, decide whether it is an allowed base, and justify your answer using what the definition needs from the function .
Justify your claim State the claim, then give the reason it has to be true. 6 points
- Part C.
A classmate says and are "basically the same fact." Using the definition, state precisely what each one equals and why, then explain why the two are easy to mix up despite being different statements.
Explain why it works A sentence or two. Reasons, not steps. 5 points
Hints
One at a time, each one a step further than the last. Take only as many as you need.
-
Hint 1 of 3
Two separate habits are on trial here: evaluating a logarithm directly, and knowing what the definition demands of the base before you even reach for an exponent.
-
Hint 2 of 3 · Part A
If the base to a whole-number power does not land on the target, rewrite both numbers as powers of one smaller common number and equate the exponents.
-
Hint 3 of 3 · Part B
Ask what would have to be true about as a function for it to have an inverse at all: it needs to be a genuine, one-to-one function on the real numbers. Test each proposed base against that requirement separately.
That is every hint for this question.
Answer and solution
Check your answer first. If it is wrong, go back to your paper: the worked solution will still be here.
The answer
Part A
and .
Part B
Only is allowed. fails because for every , so no inverse exists; fails because is not a real-valued function for every real .
Part C
because , and because ; they are easy to mix up because both pair a special input with a small whole-number output.
Not what you got? Look for the slip on your own paper before you open the solution. Finding it yourself is worth more than reading it.
Worked solution
Part A
Ask the defining question for the first one: six to the what gives two hundred sixteen? Running up the powers of answers it directly.
The second is not a whole-number power, so rewrite both and as powers of the common smaller number .
Part B
Test first. Since no matter what is, the equation has no solution and has infinitely many, so is not one-to-one and has no inverse to name.
Test next. A power such as is not a real number at all, so is not even a function on the real numbers, and there is nothing there to invert.
Test . It is positive and not equal to , so is a genuine one-to-one exponential with a genuine inverse.
Part C
Both facts come from one substitution into the defining equation .
Substitute : since for every allowed base,
Substitute : since by definition of a first power,
The two look alike on the page because each pairs a special input, either or the base itself, with a small whole-number output, either or ; nothing about the symbols reminds you which special input goes with which output.
In one line
and ; among , , , only is an allowed base, since gives a non-invertible constant power and makes undefined for real exponents like ; and , both come from substituting into the same definition, which is exactly why they are easy to swap.
Rubric
Mark your own paper against this. Give yourself the points for each element you actually wrote down, not the ones you meant to.
Part A 5 points
Converts each logarithm into the exponential question it is really asking, rewriting to a common base where the answer is not a whole number. . Worth 2 points.
Evaluates both logarithms correctly. . Worth 2 points.
Reports the second result in exact fractional form, not as a decimal. . Worth 1 point.
Part B 6 points
Classifies all three proposed bases correctly as allowed or not allowed, including stating why qualifies (positive and not equal to ). . Worth 2 points.
Justifies rejecting by tying it to failing to be one-to-one, rather than only asserting the rule. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Justifies rejecting by tying it to a fractional power of a negative number not being real. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Part C 5 points
Justifies by connecting it to , rather than only stating that it holds. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Justifies by connecting it to , rather than only stating that it holds. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Explains what the two statements have in common that makes them easy to confuse, not only that they differ. . Worth 1 point.
-
-
2. Sizing a single-elimination bracket . Application, 12 points. Question 2 of 5.
A single-elimination bracket eliminates half the field each round, with byes to cover an odd count, until one champion remains. A bracket built for exactly players needs exactly rounds, because finding that is asking a logarithm's defining question.
- Part A.
A chess club runs a knockout event with exactly players, a power of two. Write the number of rounds needed as a logarithm, and evaluate it from the definition.
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 3 points
- Part B.
A regional event has players signed up, not a power of two. Trap between two consecutive integers using powers of , and use the trapped value to say how many rounds the bracket needs.
Explain what it means Words, not just symbols. Say what the number is telling you about the situation. 6 points
- Part C.
Explain why, whenever the trapped logarithm is not already a whole number, the number of rounds must be found by rounding UP to the next whole number rather than to the NEAREST whole number, even when the trapped logarithm sits closer to the lower integer than to the upper one. Then explain why an exact power of two, like the field in part A, needs no rounding at all.
Explain why it works A sentence or two. Reasons, not steps. 3 points
Hints
One at a time, each one a step further than the last. Take only as many as you need.
-
Hint 1 of 3
This question borrows the ordinary logarithm toolbox and points it at how many rounds a bracket needs. Set up the exponential relationship between rounds and players before doing anything else.
-
Hint 2 of 3 · Part A
A power of two needs no trapping at all: read the exponent straight off, the way you would evaluate any other logarithm.
-
Hint 3 of 3 · Part B
Find the two powers of that straddle , then remember that applying an increasing function to an inequality keeps it pointing the same way.
That is every hint for this question.
Answer and solution
Check your answer first. If it is wrong, go back to your paper: the worked solution will still be here.
The answer
Part A
rounds.
Part B
, so the bracket needs rounds; seven rounds only covers players.
Part C
A bracket with rounds seats at most players, so a non-integer logarithm must be rounded up or some entrants have no round to play in. An exact power of two makes the logarithm already a whole number, so it needs no rounding.
Not what you got? Look for the slip on your own paper before you open the solution. Finding it yourself is worth more than reading it.
Worked solution
Part A
Since each round halves the field, the number of rounds needed for players is the exponent that turns into .
Nine rounds exactly seat players with no byes needed anywhere.
Part B
List the powers of nearest to : and .
Applying preserves the ordering because is increasing, and , :
Seven rounds can only seat players, fewer than the entrants, so seven rounds is not enough. The bracket must run a full eighth round, with byes handed out in the first round to make the numbers work.
Part C
A bracket run for rounds can seat at most players, since each round only doubles the capacity of the round before it.
When the field size is not an exact power of two, its logarithm is not a whole number, and rounding to the nearer integer answers a different question, how close the field size is to a clean power of two, not whether every entrant has a seat. If the lower integer is used because the logarithm sits nearer to it, the resulting can still be smaller than the actual field, leaving entrants with nowhere to play. Only rounding up, the ceiling of the logarithm, guarantees is at least the number of entrants, whatever the field size happens to be.
When the field size IS an exact power of two, as in part A, its logarithm already lands exactly on a whole number, so there is no gap to round across: that integer already is the exact number of rounds needed, neither more nor less.
In one line
A -player bracket needs rounds exactly; a -player bracket has , so it needs rounds, since rounds only seats players; and whenever the trapped logarithm is not already a whole number, rounds are rounded up rather than to the nearest integer, because a shortfall of even one seat leaves an entrant with nowhere to play, while an exact power of two, as in the first part, needs no rounding at all since its logarithm already is the exact round count.
Rubric
Mark your own paper against this. Give yourself the points for each element you actually wrote down, not the ones you meant to.
Part A 3 points
Writes the number of rounds as before evaluating anything. . Worth 1 point.
Evaluates the logarithm correctly. . Worth 1 point.
Reports the result as a whole number of rounds, matching what a round of a bracket actually is. . Worth 1 point.
Part B 6 points
Traps between two consecutive powers of . . Worth 2 points.
Uses the fact that is increasing to turn the trapped powers into a trapped logarithm. . Worth 2 points.
Interprets the trapped value to conclude rounds are needed, rather than rounding to the nearer integer. . Worth 2 points.
Part C 3 points
Explains that rounds cap the field at players, tying the rounding rule to that capacity fact rather than asserting it. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Explains why nearness to the lower integer is irrelevant: it answers a different question than whether every entrant is seated. . Worth 1 point.
-
-
3. The two cancellation laws, and which one needs a domain check . Foundational, 14 points. Question 3 of 5.
The two cancellation laws look almost identical on the page but carry different fine print: one holds for every real exponent, and the other needs a positive argument. This question applies both, then asks for the difference.
- Part A.
Simplify and .
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 5 points
- Part B.
Evaluate by rewriting as a power of first.
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 5 points
- Part C.
Using the definition of a logarithm, explain why needs , while holds for every real with no such restriction.
Justify your claim State the claim, then give the reason it has to be true. 4 points
Hints
One at a time, each one a step further than the last. Take only as many as you need.
-
Hint 1 of 3
Match each expression to one of the two cancellation laws before you touch any arithmetic; the two laws look alike but their fine print differs.
-
Hint 2 of 3 · Part B
Rewrite the outer base as a power sharing the inner logarithm's own base, then swap the order of the two exponents so the matching base and logarithm sit next to each other.
-
Hint 3 of 3 · Part C
Ask what each expression needs its INNER piece to be before the outer operation can even be applied. One inner piece can fail to exist; the other cannot.
That is every hint for this question.
Answer and solution
Check your answer first. If it is wrong, go back to your paper: the worked solution will still be here.
The answer
Part A
and .
Part B
.
Part C
needs because itself is undefined otherwise, leaving nothing to evaluate; needs nothing extra, because is automatically a positive, legal input for every real .
Not what you got? Look for the slip on your own paper before you open the solution. Finding it yourself is worth more than reading it.
Worked solution
Part A
The first expression matches the pattern , which cancels to the exponent itself for every real .
The second matches the pattern , which cancels to whenever .
Part B
Rewrite the outer base as a power of , matching the base of the logarithm inside the exponent.
The cancellation law now collapses the inner power, since its base matches the logarithm's own base.
Part C
Look at what each expression asks the logarithm to accept.
In , the inner piece has to exist before the outer power even makes sense, and is only defined when its input is positive.
In , the inner piece is a power of a positive base, so it is positive for every real whatsoever, positive, negative, or zero. Its input is never in question, so the equation needs no fine print at all.
In one line
and ; after rewriting as ; and needs because must exist first, while needs no restriction because is automatically a positive input for every real .
Rubric
Mark your own paper against this. Give yourself the points for each element you actually wrote down, not the ones you meant to.
Part A 5 points
Identifies which cancellation law applies to each expression before simplifying anything. . Worth 2 points.
Applies both cancellation laws correctly. . Worth 2 points.
Reports both results as plain numbers, with no leftover exponent notation. . Worth 1 point.
Part B 5 points
Rewrites as and reorders the two exponents so the cancellation law can act. . Worth 2 points.
Applies the cancellation law and finishes the arithmetic correctly. . Worth 2 points.
Reports a single exact number as the final result. . Worth 1 point.
Part C 4 points
Explains that requires to exist first, which fails for . . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Explains that is always a positive input for the logarithm, whatever real value takes, so no restriction is needed there. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
-
-
4. Three places an unknown can hide . Reasoning, 12 points. Question 4 of 5.
An equation built from a logarithm can trap its unknown in three different spots: the argument, the base, or the exponent. Switching between exponential and logarithmic form frees it, and the base and the argument each carry a restriction that must be checked afterward.
- Part A.
Solve for , and state why one algebraic root must be rejected.
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 4 points
- Part B.
Solve for by switching to logarithmic form.
Solve and show your work Write each step out, and end with the value and its units. 4 points
- Part C.
Solve for . Check both roots against the domain restriction, and explain why NEITHER root can ever be thrown out for an equation of this same shape, a logarithm of a polynomial expression set equal to a fixed constant, no matter what specific numbers appear in it.
Justify your claim State the claim, then give the reason it has to be true. 4 points
Hints
One at a time, each one a step further than the last. Take only as many as you need.
-
Hint 1 of 3
Identify where the unknown is hiding in each part before switching forms: the base, the exponent, or the argument. Each spot has its own restriction to check once the algebra is done.
-
Hint 2 of 3 · Part A
Switching to exponential form always gives an equation for with no logarithm left in it. Solve that equation completely before deciding which root a logarithm's own rules allow.
-
Hint 3 of 3 · Part C
After switching forms, the argument gets set equal to a fixed positive number no matter which root of the resulting equation you plug back in. Think about what that means for every root at once, not just the two you found.
That is every hint for this question.
Answer and solution
Check your answer first. If it is wrong, go back to your paper: the worked solution will still be here.
The answer
Part A
; the root is rejected because a logarithm base must be positive.
Part B
.
Part C
or , and both survive. Any root of an equation of this same shape, a logarithm of a polynomial set equal to a fixed constant, automatically makes the polynomial argument equal to that same positive value ( here), so the domain check can never eliminate one.
Not what you got? Look for the slip on your own paper before you open the solution. Finding it yourself is worth more than reading it.
Worked solution
Part A
Switch to exponential form: the base raised to the second power gives .
The real roots are and , but a logarithm base must be positive and different from , so only survives as an actual base.
Part B
The unknown sits in the exponent, so switch straight to logarithmic form.
Since , a reciprocal calls for a negative exponent.
Part C
Switch to exponential form: the argument equals .
which gives or .
Check the argument for each root: at it is , and at it is . Both are positive, so both are genuine solutions.
This was never in doubt, because of how the equation was built. For an equation of this same shape, a logarithm of a polynomial expression in set equal to a fixed constant , switching into exponential form always sets the polynomial equal to , a positive number. Every algebraic root of the resulting polynomial equation therefore makes the argument equal to that same positive value, so the domain check can never throw out a root of an equation built this same way, whatever the coefficients happen to be.
In one line
gives , rejecting since a base must be positive; gives ; and gives or , both valid, since for an equation of this same shape, a logarithm of a polynomial set equal to a fixed constant, switching to exponential form always pins the argument to the same positive value for every root.
Rubric
Mark your own paper against this. Give yourself the points for each element you actually wrote down, not the ones you meant to.
Part A 4 points
Switches the equation to exponential form correctly. . Worth 1 point.
Solves the resulting equation for both algebraic roots. . Worth 1 point.
Rejects the negative root specifically because a base must be positive, not for an unrelated reason. . Worth 2 points.
Part B 4 points
Switches the equation to logarithmic form to free the exponent. . Worth 1 point.
Evaluates the logarithm correctly, recognizing the reciprocal as a negative power of the base. . Worth 2 points.
Reports the exponent as an exact integer, not as a decimal approximation. . Worth 1 point.
Part C 4 points
Switches to exponential form and sets up the quadratic . . Worth 1 point.
Solves the quadratic and finds both roots. . Worth 1 point.
Checks both arguments and explains, in general terms, why an equation of this same shape, a logarithm of a polynomial expression set equal to a fixed constant, can never produce a root that fails the domain check. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
-
-
5. Reading the logarithm's graph off its exponential twin . Reasoning, 9 points. Question 5 of 5.
A logarithm's graph needs no table of its own. Every point, intercept, and asymptote is an exponential's own feature with input and output swapped by the reflection across the line .
- Part A.
The graph of passes through , , and . State the three points that must lie on the graph of , using the reflection alone, with no logarithm computation.
Explain what it means Words, not just symbols. Say what the number is telling you about the situation. 3 points
- Part B.
State the domain, range, and vertical asymptote of , derived from the domain, range, and horizontal asymptote of .
Explain what it means Words, not just symbols. Say what the number is telling you about the situation. 3 points
- Part C.
The graph of is strictly increasing everywhere. Using ONLY the reflection across , not the definition directly, explain why the graph of must also be strictly increasing, and why every logarithm's graph, whatever its base, passes through .
Justify your claim State the claim, then give the reason it has to be true. 3 points
Hints
One at a time, each one a step further than the last. Take only as many as you need.
-
Hint 1 of 3
Nothing here needs a fresh table of values. Every fact about the logarithm's graph is the matching fact about the exponential's graph, with the roles of input and output exchanged.
-
Hint 2 of 3 · Part A
Swap the two coordinates of each given point; do not evaluate any logarithm to check them.
-
Hint 3 of 3 · Part C
Picture two points on the exponential's rising curve and ask what happens to their relative position, left versus right and up versus down, once you swap each point's coordinates.
That is every hint for this question.
Answer and solution
Check your answer first. If it is wrong, go back to your paper: the worked solution will still be here.
The answer
Part A
, , and .
Part B
Domain , range all real numbers, vertical asymptote .
Part C
Reflecting an increasing curve across keeps it increasing, since a higher point still lands to the right of a lower one after the swap; and every exponential passes through , which reflects to for every base.
Not what you got? Look for the slip on your own paper before you open the solution. Finding it yourself is worth more than reading it.
Worked solution
Part A
Reflecting a point across the line swaps its two coordinates, so apply that swap to all three given points at once.
Part B
Each feature of the logarithm is the matching feature of the exponential, with the roles of input and output swapped.
The exponential has domain all real numbers and range ; swapped, the logarithm has
The exponential's horizontal asymptote becomes, after the swap, a vertical line for the logarithm.
Part C
Take any two points on with the first lower and further left than the second, since the curve is increasing: for instance and , where sits lower and to the left of . Reflecting across swaps each point's coordinates, turning into and into . Compare the two swapped points directly: still has the smaller -coordinate, since , so is still to the left of , and still has the smaller -coordinate, since , so is still lower than . The swap does not reverse which point is lower and further left; it preserves that order.
That order-preservation is exactly the shape of an increasing curve read left to right, so the reflected graph, which is , is increasing too.
For the second fact, every exponential passes through , since regardless of the base. Reflecting that single point across swaps its coordinates to , and the swap does not depend on which base was chosen, so it happens for every logarithm's graph alike.
In one line
The points , , on reflect to , , on ; that logarithm has domain , range all real numbers, and vertical asymptote ; and an increasing exponential's shape reflects into an increasing logarithm (as tested here for bases and ), while every exponential's point reflects to the point on its logarithm, for every base.
Rubric
Mark your own paper against this. Give yourself the points for each element you actually wrote down, not the ones you meant to.
Part A 3 points
Swaps the coordinates of all three points correctly. . Worth 2 points.
Reports the three resulting points clearly, without recomputing any of them from the definition of a logarithm. . Worth 1 point.
Part B 3 points
States the domain and range correctly, as the swap of the exponential's own domain and range. . Worth 2 points.
States the vertical asymptote correctly, distinguishing it clearly from the exponential's horizontal one. . Worth 1 point.
Part C 3 points
Explains why reflecting an increasing curve across produces another increasing curve, in terms of how the swap reorders the points. . Worth 2 points. needs an explanation, not just an answer
Connects on every exponential to on every logarithm through the same coordinate swap. . Worth 1 point. needs an explanation, not just an answer
-