1. In your own words, how does FTC Part 2 simplify the process of evaluating a definite integral compared to using the limit-of-Riemann-sums definition?
- A.It replaces the limit of a sum with a single subtraction of antiderivative values at the endpoints.
- B.It converts every definite integral into an indefinite integral that requires no further computation.
- C.It eliminates the need to find an antiderivative by approximating the area numerically.
- D.It shows that the definite integral always equals the average of $f(a)$ and $f(b)$.
View Answer
Answer: It replaces the limit of a sum with a single subtraction of antiderivative values at the endpoints.
Compare methods: Without FTC Part 2, evaluating $\int_a^b f(x)\,dx$ requires computing $\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i^*)\Delta x$, which is often laborious. Why Option A is correct: FTC Part 2 says: find any antiderivative $F$, then compute $F(b) - F(a)$. This replaces the infinite summation process with simple evaluation and subtraction. Why distractors fail: Option B is wrong because you still need to find the antiderivative and evaluate it — it doesn't eliminate computation. Option C describes numerical methods, which is the opposite of what FTC Part 2 does. Option D is simply incorrect; $\frac{f(a)+f(b)}{2}$ is related to the Trapezoidal Rule, not to FTC.