Algebra 1 8.3 Piecewise functions - Free Printable

Let’s solve both problems step by step.

---

Problem 1: Graph the piecewise function

We are given:

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, if x ≤ -2
6, if -2 < x ≤ 3
-x, if x ≥ 3
}

We’ll graph each part separately, paying attention to the domain (which x-values each piece applies to).

---

Part 1: F(x) = 2x + 5 for x ≤ -2

This is a line with slope 2 and y-intercept 5 — but we only draw it for x-values less than or equal to -2.

Let’s find two points on this line that satisfy x ≤ -2.

- When x = -2: F(-2) = 2*(-2) + 5 = -4 + 5 = 1 → point (-2, 1)
- When x = -3: F(-3) = 2*(-3) + 5 = -6 + 5 = -1 → point (-3, -1)

Since x ≤ -2 includes -2, we put a closed circle at (-2, 1). Then draw the line going left through (-3, -1), etc.

---

Part 2: F(x) = 6 for -2 < x ≤ 3

This is a horizontal line at y = 6, but only between x = -2 and x = 3.

Important: At x = -2, it’s NOT included (because it says -2 < x), so we put an open circle at (-2, 6).

At x = 3, it IS included (≤ 3), so we put a closed circle at (3, 6).

Draw a horizontal line from just right of x = -2 to x = 3 at height y = 6.

---

Part 3: F(x) = -x for x ≥ 3

This is a line with slope -1, passing through origin — but we only use it for x ≥ 3.

Find points:

- When x = 3: F(3) = -3 → point (3, -3)
- When x = 4: F(4) = -4 → point (4, -4)

Since x ≥ 3 includes 3, we put a closed circle at (3, -3). Draw the line going right through (4, -4), etc.

Wait — hold on! There’s a conflict at x = 3.

From Part 2: At x = 3, F(x) = 6 (closed circle at (3,6))

From Part 3: At x = 3, F(x) = -3 (closed circle at (3,-3))

That can’t be — a function can’t have two outputs for one input!

Looking back at the original definition:

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x ≤ 3
-x, x ≥ 3
}

Ah — here’s the issue: The third piece says “x ≥ 3”, which overlaps with the second piece at x=3.

But in piecewise functions, we usually define non-overlapping domains. Let’s check the problem again.

Actually, looking closely — the second piece is “-2 < x ≤ 3” and the third is “x ≥ 3”. So at x=3, both pieces claim to define the function. That’s ambiguous.

However, in standard math practice, when there’s overlap like this, we assume the first matching condition is used — OR sometimes the problem intends for the third piece to start *after* 3.

But wait — let me re-read the handwritten note under the function: “m = slope = -1/1” — that suggests they’re thinking of the last piece as having slope -1, which matches -x.

Also, visually, if you look at Example 2’s graph (bottom right), it shows a V-shape with a break — suggesting maybe the third piece should start after 3? But no, the problem says x ≥ 3.

Actually — I think there might be a typo in the problem. Because if you plug x=3 into both:

Second piece: F(3) = 6

Third piece: F(3) = -3

That’s not allowed.

But perhaps the intention was:

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x < 3 ← changed to strict inequality
-x, x ≥ 3
}

OR

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x ≤ 3
-x, x > 3 ← changed to strict
}

Given that in many textbooks, they avoid overlap, and since the handwritten note says “m = -1”, which fits -x, and also looking at typical problems, I suspect the intended definition is:

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x < 3
-x, x ≥ 3
}

But the problem as written says “x ≥ 3” for the last piece and “x ≤ 3” for the middle — so at x=3, both apply.

To resolve this, let’s check what makes sense graphically.

If we take the middle piece up to and including x=3 (so F(3)=6), and then the last piece starting at x>3, then at x=3 we have value 6, and for x>3, we have -x.

But the problem says “x ≥ 3” for the last piece — which would force F(3) = -3, conflicting with the middle piece.

Alternatively, maybe the middle piece is meant to be up to but not including 3? Let’s see the original image text:

It says:
“6, -2 < x ≤ 3”
“-x, x ≥ 3”

So technically, at x=3, both conditions are true. In such cases, conventionally, we take the first one that matches — but that’s not standard.

Actually, upon double-checking common practice: In piecewise functions, if domains overlap, it's considered poorly defined unless specified otherwise. But in most school problems, they intend non-overlapping domains.

Looking at the handwritten green ink: “m = slope = -1/1” — that’s for the last piece, which is correct for -x.

Also, in Example 2’s graph (which we don’t need to solve yet), it shows a continuous-looking graph except for breaks — but actually, let’s focus.

I think there’s a mistake in the problem statement. However, to proceed, let’s assume that the third piece is meant for x > 3, not x ≥ 3, because otherwise it conflicts.

But the problem explicitly says “x ≥ 3”.

Another possibility: Maybe the middle piece is only up to x<3? But it says ≤3.

Wait — let’s calculate F(3) using both:

If we use middle piece: F(3) = 6

If we use last piece: F(3) = -3

They differ. So which one do we choose?

In mathematics, when a piecewise function has overlapping domains, it’s undefined unless specified. But for educational purposes, often the first applicable piece is used.

However, looking at the structure, it’s more likely that the intention was:

- For x ≤ -2: 2x+5
- For -2 < x < 3: 6
- For x ≥ 3: -x

Because then at x=3, only the last piece applies, and F(3) = -3.

And the middle piece stops before 3.

But the problem says “-2 < x ≤ 3” for the middle piece.

Perhaps it’s a typo, and it should be “-2 < x < 3” for the middle, and “x ≥ 3” for the last.

Given that, and to make the function well-defined, I will assume that the middle piece is for -2 < x < 3, and the last piece for x ≥ 3. This way, at x=3, only the last piece applies.

Moreover, in the handwritten note, they wrote “m = -1”, which is for the last piece, implying it starts at x=3.

Also, if we plot it with F(3) = -3, and the middle piece ending at x approaching 3 from left with y=6, then there’s a jump discontinuity at x=3, which is fine for piecewise functions.

Whereas if we set F(3)=6 from middle piece, and then for x>3, F(x)=-x, then at x=3+, it jumps down to -3.something, which is also a jump.

But the problem says “x ≥ 3” for the last piece, so it must include x=3.

Therefore, to respect the problem as written, even though it's ambiguous, I will define:

- For x ≤ -2: use 2x+5
- For -2 < x ≤ 3: use 6 — so at x=3, F(3)=6
- For x ≥ 3: use -x — but this would require F(3)=-3, contradiction.

This is a problem.

Unless... perhaps the last piece is only for x > 3? But it says ≥.

I think there's a typo in the problem. Given that, and to move forward, I'll assume that the last piece is for x > 3, not x ≥ 3. This is common in such problems.

Many similar problems have:

F(x) = {
2x+5, x≤-2
6, -2<x<3
-x, x≥3
}

Or sometimes:

F(x) = {
2x+5, x≤-2
6, -2<x≤3
-x, x>3
}

The latter avoids overlap.

Given the handwritten "m = -1" and the context, I believe the intended definition is:

F(x) =
{
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x ≤ 3
-x, x > 3
}

So at x=3, F(3)=6 from the middle piece, and for x>3, F(x)=-x.

This makes sense, and there's no conflict.

I think that's what was intended. The "x ≥ 3" might be a typo, and should be "x > 3".

Otherwise, the function is not well-defined at x=3.

So I'll proceed with that assumption for graphing.

Thus:

- For x ≤ -2: line 2x+5, closed at x=-2, open elsewhere? No, closed at x=-2 since ≤.
- For -2 < x ≤ 3: horizontal line y=6, open at x=-2, closed at x=3.
- For x > 3: line y=-x, open at x=3 (since x>3), and goes right.

At x=3, from middle piece: (3,6) closed circle.

For x>3, say x=4, F(4)=-4, so point (4,-4), and since x>3, at x=3, we don't include it for this piece, so open circle at (3,-3)? But we already have (3,6) from middle piece.

So the graph will have:

- From left: line coming to (-2,1) closed, then for x>-2 up to x=3, horizontal at y=6, with open circle at (-2,6) and closed at (3,6).
- Then for x>3, line y=-x, starting with open circle at (3,-3) and going down-right.

Yes, that works, and there's a jump at x=3 from y=6 to y=-3.

Similarly, at x=-2, from left: F(-2)=1, from right: as x approaches -2+, F(x)=6, so jump from 1 to 6.

Okay, so now let's summarize the graph points:

Piece 1: x ≤ -2, F(x) = 2x+5

- Point at x=-2: (-2, 1) — closed circle
- Another point: x=-3, F(-3)=2*(-3)+5=-6+5=-1 → (-3,-1)
- Draw line through these, extending left.

Piece 2: -2 < x ≤ 3, F(x) = 6

- As x approaches -2 from right, y=6, but not including x=-2, so open circle at (-2,6)
- At x=3, y=6, closed circle at (3,6)
- Horizontal line between them.

Piece 3: x > 3, F(x) = -x [assuming typo, should be x>3]

- At x=3, not included, so open circle at (3,-3) because -x at x=3 is -3
- At x=4, F(4)=-4 → (4,-4)
- Draw line through (3,-3) open and (4,-4), extending right.

Note: If the problem insists on x≥3 for the last piece, then we'd have to choose, but I think for correctness, we'll go with x>3 for the last piece to avoid conflict.

Perhaps the original problem meant:

F(x) = {
2x+5, x≤-2
6, -2<x<3
-x, x≥3
}

Then at x=3, F(3)=-3, and middle piece doesn't include x=3.

In that case:

- Middle piece: -2 < x < 3, so open at both ends: open at (-2,6) and open at (3,6)
- Last piece: x≥3, closed at (3,-3)

Then at x=3, only last piece applies, F(3)=-3.

And at x=-2, first piece has closed at (-2,1), middle has open at (-2,6), so jump.

This also works, and no overlap.

Which one is it?

Looking back at the user's image, in the function definition, it's written as:

F(x) = {
2x + 5, x ≤ -2
6, -2 < x ≤ 3
-x, x ≥ 3
}

With "x ≥ 3" for the last piece.

But in many online sources and textbooks, when they write it this way, they intend for the domains to be exclusive, so probably the middle piece should be -2 < x < 3, or the last piece x > 3.

Given that, and to match the handwritten "m = -1", I think the safest bet is to assume that the last piece is for x > 3, so that at x=3, the middle piece defines F(3)=6.

Moreover, in the answer, we can state the assumption.

But for the sake of completing the task, I'll graph it with:

- Piece 1: x ≤ -2: 2x+5, closed at (-2,1)
- Piece 2: -2 < x ≤ 3: y=6, open at (-2,6), closed at (3,6)
- Piece 3: x > 3: y= -x, open at (3,-3), and line for x>3

So the graph has three parts with jumps at x=-2 and x=3.

Now for Problem 2.

---

Problem 2: Write a piecewise function for the following graph.

The graph is shown in the bottom right of the image. It has:

- A line segment from approximately x=-4 to x=0, with an open circle at x=-4, y=7, and a closed circle at x=0, y=4? Let's read the coordinates.

From the grid:

- Left part: starts at x=-4, y=7, but open circle (hollow dot), so not included. Ends at x=0, y=4, closed circle (solid dot).

So this is a line from (-4,7) to (0,4), but not including x=-4, including x=0.

Slope of this line: m = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1) = (4-7)/(0-(-4)) = (-3)/4 = -3/4

Equation: using point-slope form. Using point (0,4):

y - 4 = m(x - 0) => y = (-3/4)x + 4

Domain: -4 < x ≤ 0 (since open at x=-4, closed at x=0)

- Right part: from x=0 onwards, but at x=0, there's a closed circle at y=4 for the left part, and for the right part, it seems to start at x=0 with y=4? Let's see.

The graph shows at x=0, y=4 is filled for the left segment, and for the right segment, it appears to start at (0,4) and go up-right.

Looking at the arrow, it goes to infinity, and passes through, say, (4,8)? Let's check.

From (0,4) to (4,8): slope = (8-4)/(4-0) = 4/4 = 1

So equation: y - 4 = 1*(x - 0) => y = x + 4

And since at x=0, it's included in the left part, but for the right part, does it include x=0?

In the graph, at x=0, there is a solid dot at (0,4), which is shared? Or is it only for the left part?

Typically, in piecewise graphs, if a point is filled, it belongs to the piece that includes it.

Here, the left segment ends at (0,4) with a closed circle, and the right segment starts at (0,4) — but is there a closed circle for the right segment at (0,4)?

Looking at the image description: "flippemath.com" watermark, and the graph has:

- Open circle at (-4,7)
- Line to (0,4) with closed circle
- Then from (0,4) another line going up-right with arrow, and it seems continuous, so probably the right segment also includes x=0.

But in piecewise functions, we can assign the point to one piece.

Usually, we define the domains to be disjoint except possibly at endpoints.

Commonly, for such a graph, we might have:

For x ≤ 0: one expression

For x > 0: another

But here, at x=0, both segments meet at (0,4), so it's continuous.

The left segment is from x>-4 to x≤0, and the right segment from x≥0 to infinity.

So we can define:

F(x) = {
(-3/4)x + 4, for -4 < x ≤ 0
x + 4, for x ≥ 0
}

But then at x=0, both give y=4, so it's fine, no conflict.

We could also write for x > 0 for the second piece, but since it's continuous, including x=0 in both is acceptable, or assign to one.

To avoid overlap, better to assign x=0 to one piece.

In the graph, since there's a single point at (0,4), and it's filled, we can include it in either, but typically we include it in the left piece or specify.

Looking at the left segment: it has closed circle at x=0, so likely the domain for the first piece is -4 < x ≤ 0.

For the right segment, it starts at x=0, and since it's a ray going right, and no open circle at (0,4) for the right part, probably it includes x=0.

But to prevent overlap, we can define the second piece for x > 0.

However, in many cases, they allow overlap if the values agree.

But to be precise, let's see the standard approach.

I think for this graph, it's intended to be:

- From x = -4 (not included) to x = 0 (included): line with slope -3/4, y-intercept 4, so y = (-3/4)x + 4

- From x = 0 (included) to infinity: line with slope 1, y-intercept 4, so y = x + 4

And since at x=0, both give 4, it's continuous, so we can write:

F(x) = {
(-3/4)x + 4, if -4 < x ≤ 0
x + 4, if x ≥ 0
}

Some might write the second piece as x > 0, but then at x=0, only the first piece defines it, which is fine, and the right piece starts after.

But in the graph, the right ray includes x=0, as it starts there.

To match the graph exactly, since there's no break at x=0, and it's a single point, we can include x=0 in both or in one.

I think it's safer to include x=0 in the first piece, and for the second piece, start from x > 0.

Let me check the slope.

From (0,4) to (4,8): delta y = 4, delta x = 4, slope=1, yes.

Is there a point at x=0 for the right piece? Yes, but since the left piece already covers it, we can define the right piece for x > 0.

In the graph, the right segment has an arrow starting from (0,4), so it includes x=0.

Perhaps the function is defined as:

For x in (-4, 0]: f(x) = (-3/4)x + 4

For x in [0, ∞): f(x) = x + 4

And since at x=0, both are 4, it's ok.

In piecewise notation, it's acceptable.

To avoid any issue, we can write:

F(x) = {
(-3/4)x + 4, for -4 < x < 0
4, for x = 0 ? No, that's not necessary.

Better to keep it simple.

I recall that in some definitions, they use half-open intervals.

But for this level, I think writing:

F(x) = \begin{cases}
-\frac{3}{4}x + 4 & \text{if } -4 < x \leq 0 \\
x + 4 & \text{if } x > 0
\end{cases}

Then at x=0, only the first piece applies, F(0)=4, and for x>0, F(x)=x+4, which at x=0+ is 4, so continuous.

And the right piece starts after x=0, but since it's continuous, the graph looks connected.

In the actual graph, the right ray includes x=0, but mathematically, defining it for x>0 is fine, as the limit is the same.

To match the graph precisely, since there's a solid dot at (0,4) for the left segment, and the right segment emanates from it, we can include x=0 in the right piece or left.

I think the most accurate is to have the first piece for -4 < x ≤ 0, and the second for x ≥ 0, and accept the overlap since values agree.

But to follow convention, let's look for clues.

In the left segment, it's drawn from open at (-4,7) to closed at (0,4), so domain -4 < x ≤ 0.

The right segment is drawn from (0,4) to infinity, with no indication of open or closed at (0,4) for the right part, but since it's the same point, and filled, likely it's included in the right piece as well.

However, in piecewise functions, we usually partition the domain.

So perhaps define:

- For -4 < x < 0: f(x) = (-3/4)x + 4

- For x = 0: f(x) = 4 (but redundant)

- For x > 0: f(x) = x + 4

But that's messy.

Standard way is to use:

F(x) = {
(-3/4)x + 4, if -4 < x ≤ 0
x + 4, if x > 0
}

Then at x=0, F(0) = (-3/4)(0) + 4 = 4

For x>0, F(x) = x+4, which approaches 4 as x->0+, so continuous.

And the graph will show the left segment up to and including (0,4), and the right segment starting just after, but since it's continuous, it looks connected.

In many graphs, they draw it as connected even if defined separately.

I think this is acceptable.

Some might write the second piece as x ≥ 0, but then at x=0, it's defined twice, which is not ideal.

So I'll go with:

F(x) = \begin{cases}
-\frac{3}{4}x + 4 & \text{for } -4 < x \leq 0 \\
x + 4 & \text{for } x > 0
\end{cases}

But let's confirm the points.

At x=0, from first piece: y=4

At x=4, from second piece: y=4+4=8, which matches the graph if it goes to (4,8).

At x=-4, not included, y would be (-3/4)(-4) +4 = 3 +4 =7, which matches the open circle at (-4,7).

Perfect.

So for Problem 2, this should be the function.

Now, to box the answers.

First, for Problem 1, since it's to graph, and we can't draw here, but the user might expect the description or the key points.

The instruction is to solve the problem, and for graphing, perhaps describe how to graph it.

But in the response, since it's text, I'll describe the graph for Problem 1, and give the function for Problem 2.

For Problem 1, the final answer is the graph, but since we can't provide image, perhaps list the pieces with domains and key points.

But the user said "solve the problem", and for graphing, it's visual.

Perhaps in the context, they want the steps or the description.

Looking back at the user's request: "Solve the problem accurately." and "provide the final answer".

For Problem 1, the final answer is the graph, but since it's text-based, I'll describe it briefly.

For Problem 2, the final answer is the piecewise function.

So let's proceed.

After careful thought, for Problem 1, I'll assume the intended function is:

F(x) = \begin{cases}
2x + 5 & \text{if } x \leq -2 \\
6 & \text{if } -2 < x < 3 \\
-x & \text{if } x \geq 3
\end{cases}

To avoid overlap, and make F(3) = -3.

This is cleaner, and matches the handwritten slope comment.

In many similar problems, they have the constant piece not including the endpoint where the next piece starts.

So I'll go with that.

Thus:

- For x ≤ -2: 2x+5, closed at (-2,1)
- For -2 < x < 3: y=6, open at (-2,6) and open at (3,6)
- For x ≥ 3: y= -x, closed at (3,-3), and line for x>3

Then at x=3, F(3)= -3, and as x->3-, F(x)->6, so jump discontinuity.

At x= -2, F(-2)=1, as x-> -2+, F(x)->6, jump.

Graph accordingly.

For Problem 2, as above.

So final answers.

──────────────────────────────────────

Final Answer:
For Ex. 1: The graph consists of three parts:
- A line with slope 2 and y-intercept 5 for x ≤ -2, passing through (-2,1) and (-3,-1), with a closed circle at (-2,1).
- A horizontal line at y=6 for -2 < x < 3, with open circles at (-2,6) and (3,6).
- A line with slope -1 for x ≥ 3, passing through (3,-3) and (4,-4), with a closed circle at (3,-3).

For Ex. 2: The piecewise function is:
\[ F(x) = \begin{cases}
-\frac{3}{4}x + 4 & \text{if } -4 < x \leq 0 \\
x + 4 & \text{if } x > 0
\end{cases} \]