1. A student claims: "Because $\sin(1/x)$ oscillates between $-1$ and $1$ as $x \to 0$, the limit $\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin(1/x)$ does not exist." Which of the following best explains why this reasoning is flawed?
- A.The limit does not exist, but the reason is that $1/x$ is undefined at $x = 0$, not because of oscillation.
- B.Although $\sin(1/x)$ oscillates, it is multiplied by $x$, which approaches $0$ and forces the product to $0$ by the Squeeze Theorem.
- C.The oscillation of $\sin(1/x)$ is dampened by the continuity of $x$, so the limit equals $1$.
- D.The Squeeze Theorem cannot be applied to oscillating functions, so the student needs a different method.
View Answer
Answer: Although $\sin(1/x)$ oscillates, it is multiplied by $x$, which approaches $0$ and forces the product to $0$ by the Squeeze Theorem.
Identify the error in the student's reasoning: The student ignores the effect of the factor $x$. While $\sin(1/x)$ alone oscillates without a limit, the product $x \sin(1/x)$ is bounded: $-|x| \leq x \sin(1/x) \leq |x|$. Why Option B is correct: Since $\lim_{x \to 0} |x| = 0$, the Squeeze Theorem forces $\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin(1/x) = 0$. The oscillation is "squeezed out" by the vanishing factor. Why distractors fail: Option A is wrong because the limit does exist and equals $0$. Option C is wrong because the limit is $0$, not $1$, and the reasoning about "dampened by continuity" is not a valid principle. Option D is wrong because the Squeeze Theorem is precisely the standard tool for handling oscillating functions multiplied by vanishing factors.