- Solve equations and inequalities
- Simplify expressions
- Factor polynomials
- Graph equations and inequalities
- Advanced solvers
- All solvers
- Arithmetics
- Determinant
- Percentages
- Scientific Notation
- Inequalities

## What can QuickMath do?

QuickMath will automatically answer the most common problems in algebra, equations and calculus faced by high-school and college students.

- The algebra section allows you to expand, factor or simplify virtually any expression you choose. It also has commands for splitting fractions into partial fractions, combining several fractions into one and cancelling common factors within a fraction.
- The equations section lets you solve an equation or system of equations. You can usually find the exact answer or, if necessary, a numerical answer to almost any accuracy you require.
- The inequalities section lets you solve an inequality or a system of inequalities for a single variable. You can also plot inequalities in two variables.
- The calculus section will carry out differentiation as well as definite and indefinite integration.
- The matrices section contains commands for the arithmetic manipulation of matrices.
- The graphs section contains commands for plotting equations and inequalities.
- The numbers section has a percentages command for explaining the most common types of percentage problems and a section for dealing with scientific notation.

## Math Topics

More solvers.

- Add Fractions
- Simplify Fractions

Ask Questions

## Math Solver

Still have questions ask upstudy online.

- 24/7 expert live tutors

Unlimited numbers of questions

- Step-by-step explanations

You can enjoy

- Unlimited number of questions
- No interruptions
- Full access to answer and solution
- Limited Solutions

## Get step-by-step solutions to your math problems

## Try Math Solver

## Get step-by-step explanations

## Graph your math problems

## Practice, practice, practice

## Get math help in your language

## Solving the Puzzle: 10 – 10 × 10 + 10

Mathematics is like a grand puzzle, with each equation presenting a unique challenge waiting to be deciphered. In this article, I’m excited to explore one such puzzle: 10 – 10 × 10 + 10. This seemingly simple expression has the power to confuse many, but with the right tools and knowledge, we can break it down and reveal its hidden solution.

## The Order of Operations:

The key to unlocking the answer to this equation lies in adhering to the order of operations. There are two common acronyms used to remember this sequence: BODMAS and PEMDAS. Both represent the same concept, with slightly different terminology:

- BODMAS: Brackets, Orders (i.e., powers and square roots), Division and Multiplication (left to right), Addition and Subtraction (left to right).
- PEMDAS: Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division (left to right), Addition and Subtraction (left to right).

## Solving the Equation (10 – 10 × 10 + 10)

Now, let’s put these principles into action and solve “10 – 10 × 10 + 10.”

Step 1: Multiplication We start by applying multiplication from left to right. 10 × 10 equals 100.

The equation now becomes: “10 – 100 + 10.”

Step 2: Subtraction and Addition Continuing from left to right, we subtract 100 from 10, which equals -90. Then, we add 10 to -90, resulting in -80.

The final answer to “10 – 10 × 10 + 10” is = -80

So, 10 – 10 × 10 + 10 is equal to =-80

## To solve the problem 10 – 10 × 10 + 10

we can use simple language and introduce the concept of BODMAS (Brackets, Orders, Division, Multiplication, Addition, and Subtraction) or PEMDAS (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction). Here’s a kid-friendly explanation:

First, we look at the multiplication (the “×” sign). That’s like saying you have 10 groups of 10 things each. So, you have 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100. That’s a lot of things! So, now your problem looks like this: “10 – 100 + 10.”

Next, we use the BODMAS (or PEMDAS) rule. We do the subtraction first because it comes first in the problem. 10 – 100 means you have 10 things, but you take away 100 things. That’s like having 10 candies but owing 100 more. So, you’re in debt, and the answer is -90. Now, our problem looks like this: “-90 + 10.”

Now, we have just one more thing to do. We add 10 to -90. Imagine you have -90 dollars, and someone gives you 10 dollars. That makes you a little less in debt, but you’re still in debt. So, the final answer is -80.

So, the answer to “10 – 10 × 10 + 10” is -80 . Remember, when you see a math problem, you can use BODMAS or PEMDAS to help you solve it step by step. It’s like a set of rules that make sure we all get the same answer when we do math!

## Understanding the Process:

It’s essential to recognize that this equation might appear perplexing due to the juxtaposition of addition, subtraction, and multiplication. However, by carefully following the order of operations, we can simplify complex expressions and attain the correct result.

## Here is Ten More Examples for you:

To further illustrate the importance of the order of operations, here are ten more examples:

8 + 6 ÷ 2 × 4 – 5 Answer: 15

3 + 2 × (5 – 1) Answer: 11

5 + 4 ÷ 2 – 1 Answer: 6

7 × 3 + 12 ÷ 4 Answer: 24

9 – (4 + 2) × 2 Answer: -3

10 ÷ (2 + 3) × 2 Answer: 4

6 – 3 × (4 – 2) Answer: 0

2 + 5 × 3 – 4 Answer: 13

12 ÷ (3 – 1) + 4 Answer: 10

(7 + 3) × (5 – 2) Answer: 30

I hope these examples help you understand how to use the order of operations (BODMAS/PEMDAS) to solve mathematical equations.

## Here are 10 more examples using both BODMAS and PEMDAS:

Equation 1: 8 + 6 ÷ 2 × 4 – 5

Answer (BODMAS): 8 + 3 × 4 – 5 = 8 + 12 – 5 = 15

Answer (PEMDAS): 8 + 3 × 4 – 5 = 8 + 12 – 5 = 15

Equation 2: 3 + 2 × (5 – 1)

Answer (BODMAS): 3 + 2 × 4 = 3 + 8 = 11

Answer (PEMDAS): 3 + 2 × 4 = 3 + 8 = 11

Equation 3: 5 + 4 ÷ 2 – 1

Answer (BODMAS): 5 + 2 – 1 = 6

Answer (PEMDAS): 5 + 2 – 1 = 6

Equation 4: 7 × 3 + 12 ÷ 4

Answer (BODMAS): 21 + 3 = 24

Answer (PEMDAS): 21 + 3 = 24

Equation 5: 9 – (4 + 2) × 2

Answer (BODMAS): 9 – 6 × 2 = 9 – 12 = -3

Answer (PEMDAS): 9 – 6 × 2 = 9 – 12 = -3

Equation 6: 10 ÷ (2 + 3) × 2

Answer (BODMAS): 10 ÷ 5 × 2 = 2 × 2 = 4

Answer (PEMDAS): 10 ÷ 5 × 2 = 2 × 2 = 4

Equation 7: 6 – 3 × (4 – 2)

Answer (BODMAS): 6 – 3 × 2 = 6 – 6 = 0

Answer (PEMDAS): 6 – 3 × 2 = 6 – 6 = 0

Equation 8: 2 + 5 × 3 – 4

Answer (BODMAS): 2 + 15 – 4 = 13

Answer (PEMDAS): 2 + 15 – 4 = 13

Equation 9: 12 ÷ (3 – 1) + 4

Answer (BODMAS): 12 ÷ 2 + 4 = 6 + 4 = 10

Answer (PEMDAS): 12 ÷ 2 + 4 = 6 + 4 = 10

Equation 10: (7 + 3) × (5 – 2)

Answer (BODMAS): 10 × 3 = 30

## Conclusion:

Mathematics often challenges us with enigmatic equations, but with the right approach and understanding of the order of operations, no puzzle is too complex to solve. 10 – 10 × 10 + 10 is just one example of how this knowledge can help us navigate the world of math and derive accurate answers. So, remember, when you encounter a mathematical enigma, break it down step by step and let the order of operations guide you toward the solution.

PH +1 000 000 0000

24 M Drive East Hampton, NY 11937

© 2024 Geek

- Add to Home
- TigerMilk.Education GmbH
- Privacy policy
- Terms of service

Copyright Ⓒ 2013-2024 tiger-algebra.com

This site is best viewed with Javascript. If you are unable to turn on Javascript, please click here .

## Solution - Other Factorizations

Other Ways to Solve

## Step by Step Solution

Reformatting the input :.

Changes made to your input should not affect the solution: (1): "x1" was replaced by "x^1".

## Step 1 :

Equation at the end of step 1 :, step 2 :, step 3 :, pulling out like terms :.

3.1 Pull out like factors : 10 - 10x 1010 = -10 • (x 1010 - 1)

## Trying to factor as a Difference of Squares :

3.2 Factoring: x 1010 - 1 Theory : A difference of two perfect squares, A 2 - B 2 can be factored into (A+B) • (A-B) Proof : (A+B) • (A-B) = A 2 - AB + BA - B 2 = A 2 - AB + AB - B 2 = A 2 - B 2 Note : AB = BA is the commutative property of multiplication. Note : - AB + AB equals zero and is therefore eliminated from the expression. Check : 1 is the square of 1 Check : x 1010 is the square of x 505 Factorization is : (x 505 + 1) • (x 505 - 1)

## Final result :

How did we do?

## Why learn this

Terms and topics.

- Pulling out like terms
- Factoring binomials as difference of squares
- Polynomial root calculator
- Polynomial long division
- Linear equations with one unknown
- Nonlinear equations

## Related links

- Beginning Algebra Tutorial 11: Simplifying Algebraic Expressions
- How to Factor the Difference of Two Perfect Squares
- Online Polynomial Roots Calculator that shows work
- Long Polynomial Division
- Polynomial long division - Wikipedia
- Polynomial Long Division
- Polynomials - Long Division
- Alg 21 - math homework help – math tutor software
- nth root - Wikipedia
- Principal Nth Root Calculator reduces any number to Simplest Radical Form and Calculates Approximation of Principal nth Root
- Quartic Equation Calculator | Biquadratic Equation Solver

## Latest Related Drills Solved

## B-21 Raider Bomber Has One Problem It Can't Seem to Solve: Math

Summary: The B-21 Raider, designed by Northrop Grumman, is hailed as a potentially transformative asset for the U.S. Air Force. However, its impact could be limited by a slow production rate and insufficient numbers. The Air Force anticipates having between 24 and 30 Raiders operational by the early 2030s, with an acquisition rate peaking at about 10 aircraft per year during that period.

-This production pace is notably lower compared to past bomber programs like the B-47 and B-52, which were produced at rates of over 20 per year. Current plans suggest the total bomber fleet will shrink to 133 aircraft by 2033, down from 141 today. This modest fleet expansion comes as the aging B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit are phased out, and as potential adversaries like Russia and China either maintain or expand their own strategic bomber capabilities.

-This situation highlights a critical gap in U.S. military preparedness, with the B-21's slow rollout potentially unable to meet the strategic demands posed by major global competitors.

## B-21 Raider: Game-Changer or Strategic Misstep

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is clearly getting positive headlines and could truly be a game changer for the U.S. military.

However, the United States Air Force is unlikely to have significant numbers of the next-generation aircraft by the early 2030s.

Eric Tegler, writing for Forbes.com months back, reported that the Air Force could have somewhere between 24 and 30 operational Raiders in that timeframe. He cited forecast data from this year's annual Air Force Association (AFA) convention. He noted that the current timeline calls for the Pentagon to retire the aging B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers as the B-21 Raider enters service.

According to Mark Gunzinger, director of future concepts at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and panelist at the AFA, the current Department of Defense (DoD) plan is to have a bomber fleet of 133 aircraft by 2033 – lower even than the current 141 B-1, B-2, and B-52 Stratofortress bombers now in service, which is already smaller than at almost any time in the history of the Air Force.

## Coming Not Soon Enough: Fewer Than a Dozen a Year

Advanced aircraft are apparently not cheaper by the dozen, and the article in Forbes quotes Gunzinger, stating that, “it looks like the B-21 acquisition rate is going to top out at around 10 per year sometime in the 2030s.”

The Air Force had originally envisioned a fleet of 132 B-2 Spirits , but due to the project's considerable capital and operating costs, lawmakers shrank the program to just 21 aircraft. Following a 2008 crash, the Air Force has 20 in service – and those aircraft are expected to remain in service only until 2032.

Gunzinger told Tegler that his warnings that the bomber and fighter forces will reach "new lows this decade before they increase in size," and suggested that lawmakers should seek to address the threats from China. The think tank director further suggested that this isn't about production capability, and instead is driven by budgets, and that the plants that built the current B-2 Spirit had envisioned producing those bombers at a much higher rate.

Past bombers – notably the B-47 Stratojet, B-52, and B-1 – met a higher production rate of more than 20 aircraft per year. It is true that those previous aircraft were far cheaper to build, but Gunzinger suggested that the Air Force isn't pushing hard enough to build more aircraft, while lawmakers and the White House simply fail to see the need even as the B-21 is set to be the backbone of the bomber fleet.

## What Are Beijing and Moscow Doing?

It is also true that the United States is currently just one of three nations, along with Russia and China, currently operating long-range strategic bombers. Russia's fleet is aging and Moscow has struggled to produce even its older designs – like the Tupolev Tu-160 White Swan (NATO reporting name Blackjack) – in any significant number, while it still operates the propeller-driven Tupolev Tu-95 (NATO Reporting name Bear). However, Moscow maintains a significant number of those older bombers and shows no signs of retiring the aircraft anytime soon.

Moreover, China has ambitious plans for its People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) to become a major bomber power, just as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has become the largest naval force in the world. Beijing is currently believed to be developing at least two strategic bombers that could reach Guam from mainland China.

While the U.S. has allies that have tanks and fighters it can always depend on; it stands alone against these near-peer adversaries when it comes to bombers. The B-21 Raider does not seem to be on track to get here soon enough and certainly not in large enough numbers.

## Author Experience and Expertise

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs . You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu .

All images are Creative Commons.

- Skip to main content
- Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

## TED Radio Hour

- LISTEN & FOLLOW
- Apple Podcasts
- Google Podcasts
- Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

## Wind energy can be unpredictable. AI can help

Manoush Zomorodi

Rachel Faulkner White

Sanaz Meshkinpour

Part 4 of the TED Radio Hour episode Our tech has a climate problem

Sims Witherspoon is a researcher using AI to fight climate change. She says AI can help solve the biggest problem with renewables like wind and solar: their unpredictable nature.

About Sims Witherspoon

A leader at the AI research lab DeepMind, Sims Witherspoon is focused on finding ways for artificial intelligence to both advance science and benefit humanity.

Sims spent the last decade building technologies for social good and was a founding member of Google's Crisis Response team, which develops and activates products like SOS Alerts that deliver timely, relevant information to people during natural and human-made crises. She is also the co-founder of the Centre for AI & Climate , an international organization connecting technology, policy and business to accelerate the world's transition to net zero.

This segment of TED Radio Hour was produced by Rachel Faulkner White and edited by Sanaz Meshkinpour. You can follow us on Facebook @TEDRadioHour and email us at [email protected] .

## Related NPR Links

Web resources.

- NURBURGRING WEBCAMS
- WORK FOR US

## Hyundai Chasing Pikes Peak EV Glory With Four Ioniq 5 Ns

## First Look: New Toyota 4Runner Trailhunter Is A Turn-Key Overlanding Machine

## 2025 Toyota 4Runner Is The Tacoma Of SUVs And It’s Coming For The Bronco

Editor's picks.

## Dodge Hornet Outsells Alfa Tonale 10:1, Stellantis Sees 10% Drop In Q1 Sales

## Savings Over Safety? Ford Under Fire For Recall Fix That Doesn’t Solve The Problem

The Escape and Bronco Sport have faulty fuel injectors, but Ford doesn't want to replace them despite a significant fire risk

## by Michael Gauthier

- The government has taken issue with Ford’s fix for a fire-related recall involving the Escape and Bronco Sport.
- The models were equipped with faulty fuel injectors, but the remedy doesn’t involve them being replaced.
- The government is asking if Ford did a cost-benefit analysis when deciding which remedy to conduct.

Ford’s reputation has been going up in smoke over a seemingly endless stream of recalls . The situation isn’t getting any better as the government is now taking issue with a recall that involved two popular crossovers.

In an e-mail sent last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation informed Ford that it had “identified significant safety concerns” regarding a recall remedy involving the 2022 Escape and 2022-2023 Bronco Sport . Both models were equipped with defective fuel injectors that can crack and cause fuel or fuel vapors to accumulate near ignition sources. This is a disaster waiting to happen as the vehicle could potentially catch on fire and cause injury or death.

More: Ford Thought It Fixed Bronco Sport And Escape Fuel Leak, But 5 Fires Show Problem Persists

Digging deeper, the recall noted a “cracked fuel injector in the engine allows for fuel to leak at a high rate (19L/ hour) into the cylinder head, which can travel out via a drain hole and down onto hot surfaces on the exhaust/turbo system.”

While the obvious solution would be to replace the faulty fuel injectors, that wasn’t Ford’s answer. Instead, the company wanted to mitigate the fire risk while leaving the bad injectors in place.

In particular, the remedy called for updated engine control software that would detect a drop in fuel rail pressure which signifies a leak. A message would then show on the instrument cluster, while the vehicle would also “invoke a strategy to disable the high-pressure fuel pump, derate engine power output and reduce temperatures of possible ignition sources in the engine compartment.” On top of that, a drain tube would also be installed to direct fuel away from hot surfaces and onto the ground.

The government wasn’t impressed and noted the “remedy program does not address the root cause of the issue and does not proactively call for the replacement of defective fuel injectors prior to their failure.” In effect, Ford comes off as wanting to save a few bucks instead of wanting to fix the issue. That’s not a good look, especially considering the models have been involved in more than four dozen fires .

It remains to be seen if Ford will buckle under pressure, but the government has decided to “investigate the adequacy and various safety concerns of the remedy program.” As a result, they’re asking for a slew of information as well as a “summary of Ford’s assessment of the root cause and consequences of the alleged defect” and a “summary of Ford’s assessment of the remedy program’s effectiveness.” Speaking of the latter, the NHTSA wants a “summary of any test programs conducted that validated the remedy was sufficient in resolving the alleged defect” and “any associated cost-benefit analyses that were conducted when selecting the remedy program.”

The latter is pretty telling as it implies the government believes Ford might have put costs savings ahead of safety. That remains to be seen, but they’re essentially looking to see if the automaker decided a drain tube and a software update were cheaper than replacing the injectors, and that’s why they went that route.

## Game Central

Similar problems from web search.

## Solve for x Calculator

Enter the Equation you want to solve into the editor.

Please ensure that your password is at least 8 characters and contains each of the following:

- a special character: @$#!%*?&

- Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

## Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

The porn star testified for eight hours at donald trump’s hush-money trial. this is how it went..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

It’s 6:41 AM. I’m feeling a little stressed because I’m running late. It’s the fourth week of Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial. It’s a white collar trial. Most of the witnesses we’ve heard from have been, I think, typical white collar witnesses in terms of their professions.

We’ve got a former publisher, a lawyer, accountants. The witness today, a little less typical, Stormy Daniels, porn star in a New York criminal courtroom in front of a jury more accustomed to the types of witnesses they’ve already seen. There’s a lot that could go wrong.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Today, what happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of Donald J. Trump. As before, my colleague Jonah Bromwich was inside the courtroom.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

It’s Friday, May 10th.

So it’s now day 14 of this trial. And I think it’s worth having you briefly, and in broad strokes, catch listeners up on the biggest developments that have occurred since you were last on, which was the day that opening arguments were made by both the defense and the prosecution. So just give us that brief recap.

Sure. It’s all been the prosecution’s case so far. And prosecutors have a saying, which is that the evidence is coming in great. And I think for this prosecution, which is trying to show that Trump falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal, to ease his way into the White House in 2016, the evidence has been coming in pretty well. It’s come in well through David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer, who testified that he entered into a secret plot with Trump and Michael Cohen, his fixer at the time, to suppress negative stories about Trump, the candidate.

It came in pretty well through Keith Davidson, who was a lawyer to Stormy Daniels in 2016 and negotiated the hush money payment. And we’ve seen all these little bits and pieces of evidence that tell the story that prosecutors want to tell. And the case makes sense so far. We can’t tell what the jury is thinking, as we always say.

But we can tell that there’s a narrative that’s coherent and that matches up with the prosecution’s opening statement. Then we come to Tuesday. And that day really marks the first time that the prosecution’s strategy seems a little bit risky because that’s the day that Stormy Daniels gets called to the witness stand.

OK, well, just explain why the prosecution putting Stormy Daniels on the stand would be so risky. And I guess it makes sense to answer that in the context of why the prosecution is calling her as a witness at all.

Well, you can see why it makes sense to have her. The hush money payment was to her. The cover-up of the hush money payment, in some ways, concerns her. And so she’s this character who’s very much at the center of this story. But according to prosecutors, she’s not at the center of the crime. The prosecution is telling a story, and they hope a compelling one. And arguably, that story starts with Stormy Daniels. It starts in 2006, when Stormy Daniels says that she and Trump had sex, which is something that Trump has always denied.

So if prosecutors were to not call Stormy Daniels to the stand, you would have this big hole in the case. It would be like, effect, effect, effect. But where is the cause? Where is the person who set off this chain reaction? But Stormy Daniels is a porn star. She’s there to testify about sex. Sex and pornography are things that the jurors were not asked about during jury selection. And those are subjects that bring up all kinds of different complex reactions in people.

And so, when the prosecutors bring Stormy Daniels to the courtroom, it’s very difficult to know how the jurors will take it, particularly given that she’s about to describe a sexual episode that she says she had with the former president. Will the jurors think that makes sense, as they sit here and try to decide a falsifying business records case, or will they ask themselves, why are we hearing this?

So the reason why this is the first time that the prosecution’s strategy is, for journalists like you, a little bit confusing, is because it’s the first time that the prosecution seems to be taking a genuine risk in what they’re putting before these jurors. Everything else has been kind of cut and dry and a little bit more mechanical. This is just a wild card.

This is like live ammunition, to some extent. Everything else is settled and controlled. And they know what’s going to happen. With Stormy Daniels, that’s not the case.

OK, so walk us through the testimony. When the prosecution brings her to the stand, what actually happens?

It starts, as every witness does, with what’s called direct examination, which is a fancy word for saying prosecutors question Stormy Daniels. And they have her tell her story. First, they have her tell the jury about her education and where she grew up and her professional experience. And because of Stormy Daniels’s biography, that quickly goes into stripping, and then goes into making adult films.

And I thought the prosecutor who questioned her, Susan Hoffinger, had this nice touch in talking about that, because not only did she ask Daniels about acting in adult films. But she asked her about writing and directing them, too, emphasizing the more professional aspects of that work and giving a little more credit to the witness, as if to say, well, you may think this or you may think that. But this is a person with dignity who took what she did seriously. Got it.

What’s your first impression of Daniels as a witness?

It’s very clear that she’s nervous. She’s speaking fast. She’s laughing to herself and making small jokes. But the tension in the room is so serious from the beginning, from the moment she enters, that those jokes aren’t landing. So it just feels, like, really heavy and still and almost oppressive in there. So Daniels talking quickly, seeming nervous, giving more answers than are being asked of her by the prosecution, even before we get to the sexual encounter that she’s about to describe, all of that presents a really discomfiting impression, I would say.

And how does this move towards the encounter that Daniels ultimately has?

It starts at a golf tournament in 2006, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Daniels meets Trump there. There are other celebrities there, too. They chatted very briefly. And then she received a dinner invitation from him. She thought it over, she says. And she goes to have dinner with Trump, not at a restaurant, by the way. But she’s invited to join him in the hotel suite.

So she gets to the hotel suite. And his bodyguard is there. And the hotel door is cracked open. And the bodyguard greets her and says she looks nice, this and that. And she goes in. And there’s Donald Trump, just as expected. But what’s not expected, she says, is that he’s not wearing what you would wear to a dinner with a stranger, but instead, she says, silk or satin pajamas. She asked him to change, she says. And he obliges.

He goes, and he puts on a dress shirt and dress pants. And they sit down at the hotel suite’s dining room table. And they have a kind of bizarre dinner. Trump is asking her very personal questions about pornography and safe sex. And she testifies that she teased him about vain and pompous he is. And then at some point, she goes to the bathroom. And she sees that he has got his toiletries in there, his Old Spice, his gold tweezers.

Very specific details.

Yeah, we’re getting a ton of detail in this scene. And the reason we’re getting those is because prosecutors are trying to elicit those details to establish that this is a credible person, that this thing did happen, despite what Donald Trump and his lawyers say. And the reason you can know it happened, prosecutors seem to be saying, is because, look at all these details she can still summon up.

She comes out of the bathroom. And she says that Donald Trump is on the hotel bed. And what stands out to me there is what she describes as a very intense physical reaction. She says that she blacked out. And she quickly clarifies, she doesn’t mean from drugs or alcohol. She means that, she says, that the intensity of this experience was such that, suddenly, she can’t remember every detail. The prosecution asks a question that cuts directly to the sex. Essentially, did you start having sex with him? And Daniels says that she did. And she continues to provide more details than even, I think, the prosecution wanted.

And I think we don’t want to go chapter and verse through this claimed sexual encounter. But I wonder what details stand out and which details feel important, given the prosecution’s strategy here.

All the details stand out because it’s a story about having had sex with a former president. And the more salacious and more private the details feel, the more you’re going to remember them. So we’ll remember that Stormy Daniels said what position they had sex in. We’ll remember that she said he didn’t use a condom. Whether that’s important to the prosecution’s case, now, that’s a much harder question to answer, as we’ve been saying.

But what I can tell you is, as she’s describing having had sex with Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is sitting right there, and Eric Trump, his son, is sitting behind him, seeming to turn a different color as he hears this embarrassment of his father being described to a courtroom full of reporters at this trial, it’s hard to even describe the energy in that room. It was like nothing I had ever experienced. And it was just Daniels’s testimony and, seemingly, the former President’s emotions. And you almost felt like you were trapped in there with both of them as this description was happening.

Well, I think it’s important to try to understand why the prosecution is getting these details, these salacious, carnal, pick your word, graphic details about sex with Donald Trump. What is the value, if other details are clearly making the point that she’s recollecting something?

Well, I think, at this point, we can only speculate. But one thing we can say is, this was uncomfortable. This felt bad. And remember, prosecutor’s story is not about the sex. It’s about trying to hide the sex. So if you’re trying to show a jury why it might be worthwhile to hide a story, it might be worth —

Providing lots of salacious details that a person would want to hide.

— exposing them to how bad that story feels and reminding them that if they had been voters and they had heard that story, and, in fact, they asked Daniels this very question, if you hadn’t accepted hush money, if you hadn’t signed that NDA, is this the story you would have told? And she said, yes. And so where I think they’re going with this, but we can’t really be sure yet, is that they’re going to tell the jurors, hey, that story, you can see why he wanted to cover that up, can’t you?

You mentioned the hush money payments. What testimony does Daniels offer about that? And how does it advance the prosecution’s case of business fraud related to the hush money payments?

So little evidence that it’s almost laughable. She says that she received the hush money. But we actually already heard another witness, her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson, testify that he had received the hush money payment on her behalf. And she testified about feeling as if she had to sell this story because the election was fast approaching, almost as if her leverage was slipping away because she knew this would be bad for Trump.

That feels important. But just help me understand why it’s important.

Well, what the prosecution has been arguing is that Trump covered up this hush money payment in order to conceal a different crime. And that crime, they say, was to promote his election to the presidency by illegal means.

Right, we’ve talked about this in the past.

So when Daniels ties her side of the payment into the election, it just reminds the jurors maybe, oh, right, this is what they’re arguing.

So how does the prosecution end this very dramatic, and from everything you’re saying, very tense questioning of Stormy Daniels about this encounter?

Well, before they can even end, the defense lawyers go and they consult among themselves. And then, with the jury out of the room, one of them stands up. And he says that the defense is moving for a mistrial.

On what terms?

He says that the testimony offered by Daniels that morning is so prejudicial, so damning to Trump in the eyes of the jury, that the trial can no longer be fair. Like, how could these jurors have heard these details and still be fair when they render their verdict? And he says a memorable expression. He says, you can’t un-ring that bell, meaning they heard it. They can’t un-hear it. It’s over. Throw out this trial. It should be done.

Wow. And what is the response from the judge?

So the judge, Juan Merchan, he hears them out. And he really hears them out. But at the end of their arguments, he says, I do think she went a little too far. He says that. He said, there were things that were better left unsaid.

By Stormy Daniels?

By Stormy Daniels. And he acknowledges that she is a difficult witness. But, he says, the remedy for that is not a mistrial, is not stopping the whole thing right now. The remedy for that is cross-examination. If the defense feels that there are issues with her story, issues with her credibility, they can ask her whatever they want. They can try to win the jury back over. If they think this jury has been poisoned by this witness, well, this is their time to provide the antidote. The antidote is cross-examination. And soon enough, cross-examination starts. And it is exactly as intense and combative as we expected.

We’ll be right back.

So, Jonah, how would you characterize the defense’s overall strategy in this intense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels?

People know the word impeach from presidential impeachments. But it has a meaning in law, too. You impeach a witness, and, specifically, their credibility. And that’s what the defense is going for here. They are going to try to make Stormy Daniels look like a liar, a fraud, an extortionist, a money-grubbing opportunist who wanted to take advantage of Trump and sought to do so by any means necessary.

And what did that impeachment strategy look like in the courtroom?

The defense lawyer who questions Stormy Daniels is a woman named Susan Necheles. She’s defended Trump before. And she’s a bit of a cross-examination specialist. We even saw her during jury selection bring up these past details to confront jurors who had said nasty things about Trump on social media with. And she wants to do the same thing with Daniels. She wants to bring up old interviews and old tweets and things that Daniels has said in the past that don’t match what Daniels is saying from the stand.

What’s a specific example? And do they land?

Some of them land. And some of them don’t. One specific example is that Necheles confronts Daniels with this old tweet, where Daniels says that she’s going to dance down the street if Trump goes to jail. And what she’s trying to show there is that Daniels is out for revenge, that she hates Trump, and that she wants to see him go to jail. And that’s why she’s testifying against him.

And Daniels is very interesting during the cross-examination. It’s almost as if she’s a different person. She kind of squares her shoulders. And she sits up a little straighter. And she leans forward. Daniels is ready to fight. But it doesn’t quite land. The tweet actually says, I’ll dance down the street when he’s selected to go to jail.

And Daniels goes off on this digression about how she knows that people don’t get selected to go to jail. That’s not how it works. But she can’t really unseat this argument, that she’s a political enemy of Donald Trump. So that one kind of sticks, I would say. But there are other moves that Necheles tries to pull that don’t stick.

So unlike the prosecution, which typically used words like adult, adult film, Necheles seems to be taking every chance she can get to say porn, or pornography, or porn star, to make it sound base or dirty. And so when she starts to ask Daniels about actually being in pornography, writing, acting, and directing sex films, she tries to land a punch line, Necheles does. She says, so you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real, right?

As if to say, perhaps this story you have told about entering Trump’s suite in Lake Tahoe and having sex with him was made up.

Just another one of your fictional stories about sex. But Daniels comes back and says, the sex in the films, it’s very much real, just like what happened to me in that room. And so, when you have this kind of combat of a lawyer cross-examining very aggressively and the witness fighting back, you can feel the energy in the room shift as one lands a blow or the other does. But here, Daniels lands one back. And the other issue that I think Susan Necheles runs into is, she tries to draw out disparities from interviews that Daniels gave, particularly to N-TOUCH, very early on once the story was out.

It’s kind of like a tabloid magazine?

But some of the disparities don’t seem to be landing quite like Necheles would want. So she tries to do this complicated thing about where the bodyguard was in the room when Daniels walked into the room, as described in an interview in a magazine. But in that magazine interview, as it turns out, Daniels mentioned that Trump was wearing pajamas. And so, if I’m a juror, I don’t care where the bodyguard is. I’m thinking about, oh, yeah, I remember that Stormy Daniels said now in 2024 that Trump was wearing pajamas.

I’m curious if, as somebody in the room, you felt that the defense was effective in undermining Stormy Daniels’s credibility? Because what I took from the earlier part of our conversation was that Stormy Daniels is in this courtroom on behalf of the prosecution to tell a story that’s uncomfortable and has the kind of details that Donald Trump would be motivated to try to hide. And therefore, this defense strategy is to say, those details about what Trump might want to hide, you can’t trust them. So does this back and forth effectively hurt Stormy Daniels’s credibility, in your estimation?

I don’t think that Stormy Daniels came off as perfectly credible about everything she testified about. There are incidents that were unclear or confusing. There were things she talked about that I found hard to believe, when she, for instance, denied that she had attacked Trump in a tweet or talked about her motivations. But about what prosecutors need, that central story, the story of having had sex with him, we can’t know whether it happened.

But there weren’t that many disparities in these accounts over the years. In terms of things that would make me doubt the story that Daniels was telling, details that don’t add up, those weren’t present. And you don’t have to take my word for that, nor should you. But the judge is in the room. And he says something very, very similar.

What does he say? And why does he say it?

Well, he does it when the defense, again, at the end of the day on Thursday, calls for a mistrial.

With a similar argument as before?

Not only with a similar argument as before, but, like, almost the exact same argument. And I would say that I was astonished to see them do this. But I wasn’t because I’ve covered other trials where Trump is the client. And in those trials, the lawyers, again and again, called for a mistrial.

And what does Judge Marchan say in response to this second effort to seek a mistrial?

Let me say, to this one, he seems a little less patient. He says that after the first mistrial ruling, two days before, he went into his chambers. And he read every decision he had made about the case. He took this moment to reflect on the first decision. And he found that he had, in his own estimation, which is all he has, been fair and not allowed evidence that was prejudicial to Trump into this trial. It could continue. And so he said that again. And then he really almost turned on the defense. And he said that the things that the defense was objecting to were things that the defense had made happen.

He says that in their opening statement, the defense could have taken issue with many elements of the case, about whether there were falsified business records, about any of the other things that prosecutors are saying happened. But instead, he says, they focused their energy on denying that Trump ever had sex with Daniels.

And so that was essentially an invitation to the prosecution to call Stormy Daniels as a witness and have her say from the stand, yes, I had this sexual encounter. The upshot of it is that the judge not only takes the defense to task. But he also just says that he finds Stormy Daniels’s narrative credible. He doesn’t see it as having changed so much from year to year.

Interesting. So in thinking back to our original question here, Jonah, about the idea that putting Stormy Daniels on the stand was risky, I wonder if, by the end of this entire journey, you’re reevaluating that idea because it doesn’t sound like it ended up being super risky. It sounded like it ended up working reasonably well for the prosecution.

Well, let me just assert that it doesn’t really matter what I think. The jury is going to decide this. There’s 12 people. And we can’t know what they’re thinking. But my impression was that, while she was being questioned by the prosecution for the prosecution’s case, Stormy Daniels was a real liability. She was a difficult witness for them.

And the judge said as much. But when the defense cross-examined her, Stormy Daniels became a better witness, in part because their struggles to discredit her may have actually ended up making her story look more credible and stronger. And the reason that matters is because, remember, we said that prosecutors are trying to fill this hole in their case. Well, now, they have. The jury has met Stormy Daniels. They’ve heard her account. They’ve made of it what they will. And now, the sequence of events that prosecutors are trying to line up as they seek prison time for the former President really makes a lot of sense.

It starts with what Stormy Daniels says with sex in a hotel suite in 2006. It picks up years later, as Donald Trump is trying to win an election and, prosecutors say, suppressing negative stories, including Stormy Daniels’s very negative story. And the story that prosecutors are telling ends with Donald Trump orchestrating the falsification of business records to keep that story concealed.

Well, Jonah, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Of course, thanks for having me.

The prosecution’s next major witness will be Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who arranged for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen is expected to take the stand on Monday.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a defiant response to warnings from the United States that it would stop supplying weapons to Israel if Israel invades the Southern Gaza City of Rafah. So far, Israel has carried out a limited incursion into the city where a million civilians are sheltering, but has threatened a full invasion. In a statement, Netanyahu said, quote, “if we need to stand alone, we will stand alone.”

Meanwhile, high level ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have been put on hold in part because of anger over Israel’s incursion into Rafah.

A reminder, tomorrow, we’ll be sharing the latest episode of our colleague’s new show, “The Interview” This week on “The Interview,” Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with radio host Charlamagne Tha God about his frustrations with how Americans talk about politics.

If me as a Black man, if I criticize Democrats, then I’m supporting MAGA. But if I criticize, you know, Donald Trump and Republicans, then I’m a Democratic shill. Why can’t I just be a person who deals in nuance?

Today’s episode was produced by Olivia Natt and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Lexie Diao, with help from Paige Cowett, contains original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

- May 13, 2024 • 27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
- May 10, 2024 • 27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
- May 9, 2024 • 34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
- May 8, 2024 • 28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
- May 7, 2024 • 27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
- May 6, 2024 • 29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
- May 3, 2024 • 25:33 The Protesters and the President
- May 2, 2024 • 29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
- May 1, 2024 • 35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
- April 30, 2024 • 27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
- April 29, 2024 • 47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
- April 26, 2024 • 21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Jonah E. Bromwich

Produced by Olivia Natt and Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Lexie Diao

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

## Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

This episode contains descriptions of an alleged sexual liaison.

What happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump?

Jonah Bromwich, one of the lead reporters covering the trial for The Times, was in the room.

## On today’s episode

Jonah E. Bromwich , who covers criminal justice in New York for The New York Times.

## Solver Title

## Generating PDF...

- Pre Algebra Order of Operations Factors & Primes Fractions Long Arithmetic Decimals Exponents & Radicals Ratios & Proportions Percent Modulo Number Line Expanded Form Mean, Median & Mode
- Algebra Equations Inequalities System of Equations System of Inequalities Basic Operations Algebraic Properties Partial Fractions Polynomials Rational Expressions Sequences Power Sums Interval Notation Pi (Product) Notation Induction Logical Sets Word Problems
- Pre Calculus Equations Inequalities Scientific Calculator Scientific Notation Arithmetics Complex Numbers Polar/Cartesian Simultaneous Equations System of Inequalities Polynomials Rationales Functions Arithmetic & Comp. Coordinate Geometry Plane Geometry Solid Geometry Conic Sections Trigonometry
- Calculus Derivatives Derivative Applications Limits Integrals Integral Applications Integral Approximation Series ODE Multivariable Calculus Laplace Transform Taylor/Maclaurin Series Fourier Series Fourier Transform
- Functions Line Equations Functions Arithmetic & Comp. Conic Sections Transformation
- Linear Algebra Matrices Vectors
- Trigonometry Identities Proving Identities Trig Equations Trig Inequalities Evaluate Functions Simplify
- Statistics Mean Geometric Mean Quadratic Mean Average Median Mode Order Minimum Maximum Probability Mid-Range Range Standard Deviation Variance Lower Quartile Upper Quartile Interquartile Range Midhinge Standard Normal Distribution
- Physics Mechanics
- Chemistry Chemical Reactions Chemical Properties
- Finance Simple Interest Compound Interest Present Value Future Value
- Economics Point of Diminishing Return
- Conversions Roman Numerals Radical to Exponent Exponent to Radical To Fraction To Decimal To Mixed Number To Improper Fraction Radians to Degrees Degrees to Radians Hexadecimal Scientific Notation Distance Weight Time Volume
- Pre Algebra
- Pre Calculus
- Basic (Linear)
- Biquadratic
- Logarithmic
- Exponential
- Solve For x
- Scientific Calculator
- Scientific Notation Arithmetics
- Complex Numbers
- Cartesian to Polar
- Polar to Cartesian
- System of Inequalities
- Partial Fractions
- Periodicity
- Y Intercept
- X Intercepts
- Point Slope Form
- Step Functions
- Arithmetics
- Start Point
- Area & Perimeter
- Sides & Angles
- Law of Sines
- Law of Cosines
- Width & Length
- Volume & Surface
- Edges & Diagonal
- Volume & Radius
- Surface Area
- Radius & Diameter
- Volume & Height
- Circumference
- Eccentricity
- Trigonometric Equations
- Evaluate Functions
- Linear Algebra
- Trigonometry
- Conversions

## Most Used Actions

Number line.

- solve\:for\:x,\:2x-4=10
- solve\:for\:x,\:5x-6=3x-8
- solve\:for\:x,\:\sqrt{2}x-\sqrt{3}=\sqrt{5}
- solve\:for\:x,\:\frac{x}{3}+\frac{x}{2}=10
- What is Solve for x in math?
- Solve for x in math means finding the value of x that would make the equation true.
- How do you get X by itself?
- To get a variable by itself a combination of algebraic techniques is requiered. The distributive property, the addition and subtraction properties of equality to move all the terms containing x to one side of the equation, the multiplication and division properties of equality to eliminate any coefficients.
- How do you solve the equation for different variables step-by-step?
- To solve the equation for different variables step-by-step clear any fractions by multiplying both sides of the equation by the LCM of the denominators. Get all the terms with the wanted variable on one side of the equation and all the other terms on the other side. Isolate the variable, and solve for the variable by undoing any arithmetic operations that were used to isolate it.

solve-for-x-calculator

- Middle School Math Solutions – Equation Calculator Welcome to our new "Getting Started" math solutions series. Over the next few weeks, we'll be showing how Symbolab...

Please add a message.

Message received. Thanks for the feedback.

## IMAGES

## VIDEO

## COMMENTS

Free math problem solver answers your algebra homework questions with step-by-step explanations. Mathway. Visit Mathway on the web. Start 7-day free trial on the app. Start 7-day free trial on the app. Download free on Amazon. Download free in Windows Store. get Go. Algebra. Basic Math. Pre-Algebra. Algebra. Trigonometry. Precalculus.

QuickMath will automatically answer the most common problems in algebra, equations and calculus faced by high-school and college students. The algebra section allows you to expand, factor or simplify virtually any expression you choose. It also has commands for splitting fractions into partial fractions, combining several fractions into one and ...

Free Order of Operations (PEMDAS) calculator - solve algebra problems following PEMDAS order step-by-step

Free math problem solver answers your algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics homework questions with step-by-step explanations, just like a math tutor. Enter a problem... Basic Math Examples. Popular Problems. Basic Math. Evaluate 10+10*10-10÷10. Step 1.

Solve math effortlessly with CameraMath Math Solver. From quick calculations to comprehensive problem explanations, get the answers you need instantly. CameraMath is an essential learning and problem-solving tool for students! Just snap a picture of the question of the homework and CameraMath will show you the step-by-step solution with ...

Online math solver with free step by step solutions to algebra, calculus, and other math problems. Get help on the web or with our math app.

Popular Calculators. Fractions Radical Equation Factoring Inverse Quadratic Simplify Slope Domain Antiderivatives Polynomial Equation Log Equation Cross Product Partial Derivative Implicit Derivative Tangent Complex Numbers. Symbolab: equation search and math solver - solves algebra, trigonometry and calculus problems step by step.

Algebra. Equation Solver. Step 1: Enter the Equation you want to solve into the editor. The equation calculator allows you to take a simple or complex equation and solve by best method possible. Step 2: Click the blue arrow to submit and see the result! The equation solver allows you to enter your problem and solve the equation to see the result.

Online math solver with free step by step solutions to algebra, calculus, and other math problems. Get help on the web or with our math app. ... Type a math problem. Examples. Quadratic equation { x } ^ { 2 } - 4 x - 5 = 0. Trigonometry. 4 \sin \theta \cos \theta = 2 \sin \theta ...

Integration. ∫ 01 xe−x2dx. Limits. x→−3lim x2 + 2x − 3x2 − 9. Solve your math problems using our free math solver with step-by-step solutions. Our math solver supports basic math, pre-algebra, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and more.

To solve the problem 10 - 10 × 10 + 10. we can use simple language and introduce the concept of BODMAS (Brackets, Orders, Division, Multiplication, ... 10 × 10 + 10" is -80. Remember, when you see a math problem, you can use BODMAS or PEMDAS to help you solve it step by step. It's like a set of rules that make sure we all get the same ...

Basic Math Plan. Basic Math Solver offers you solving online fraction problems, metric conversions, power and radical problems. You can find area and volume of rectangles, circles, triangles, trapezoids, boxes, cylinders, cones, pyramids, spheres. You can simplify and evaluate expressions, factor/multiply polynomials, combine expressions.

Equations : Tiger Algebra gives you not only the answers, but also the complete step by step method for solving your equations 10-10x10+10 so that you understand better. Home; Topics; Add to Home; Contact; TigerMilk.Education GmbH; ... Enter an equation or problem. ... Alg 21 - math homework help - math tutor software ; nth root - Wikipedia ;

Solve your math problems using our free math solver with step-by-step solutions. Our math solver supports basic math, pre-algebra, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and more.

To solve math problems step-by-step start by reading the problem carefully and understand what you are being asked to find. Next, identify the relevant information, define the variables, and plan a strategy for solving the problem. Show more; en. Related Symbolab blog posts.

Choose Topic. Examples ...

Free equations calculator - solve linear, quadratic, polynomial, radical, exponential and logarithmic equations with all the steps. Type in any equation to get the solution, steps and graph ... Study Tools AI Math Solver Popular Problems Worksheets Study Guides Practice Cheat Sheets Calculators Graphing Calculator Geometry Calculator.

Choose Topic. Examples ...

Dear Friends and Family...I hope you all are looking good... If you like this video about How to Solve This Nice Math Olympiad Challenge,Kindly Like, Share,...

Summary: The B-21 Raider, designed by Northrop Grumman, is hailed as a potentially transformative asset for the U.S. Air Force. However, its impact could be limited by a slow production rate and ...

Solve your math problems using our free math solver with step-by-step solutions. Our math solver supports basic math, pre-algebra, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and more.

AI can help. Part 4 of the TED Radio Hour episode Our tech has a climate problem. Sims Witherspoon is a researcher using AI to fight climate change. She says AI can help solve the biggest problem ...

Ford Under Fire For Recall Fix That Doesn't Solve The Problem. The Escape and Bronco Sport have faulty fuel injectors, but Ford doesn't want to replace them despite a significant fire risk ...

It combines math, computer science and economics, deploying "advanced sampling methods and game theory to incentivize integrity and minimize computational demands across decentralized networks ...

2024-05-08t06:00:10-04:00 This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors.

Solve your math problems using our free math solver with step-by-step solutions. Our math solver supports basic math, pre-algebra, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and more.

Solve for x Calculator. Step 1: Enter the Equation you want to solve into the editor. The equation calculator allows you to take a simple or complex equation and solve by best method possible. Step 2: Click the blue arrow to submit and see the result! The solve for x calculator allows you to enter your problem and solve the equation to see the ...

On today's episode. Jonah E. Bromwich, who covers criminal justice in New York for The New York Times. Stormy Daniels leaving court on Thursday, after a second day of cross-examination in the ...

To solve the equation for different variables step-by-step clear any fractions by multiplying both sides of the equation by the LCM of the denominators. Get all the terms with the wanted variable on one side of the equation and all the other terms on the other side.