Solving Rational Equations: Introduction

While adding and subtracting rational expressions is a royal pain, solving rational equations is much simpler. (Note that I
don't say that it's "simple", just that it's "simpler".) This is because, as soon as you go from a rational expression (with no
"equals" sign in it) to a rational equation (with an "equals" sign in the middle), you get a whole different set of tools to work
with. In particular, you can multiply through on both sides of the equation to get rid of the denominators.

Solve the following equation:

This equation is so simple that I can solve it just by looking at it: since I have two-thirds equal tox-thirds,
clearly x = 2. The reason this was so easy to solve is that the denominators were the same, so all I had to do was
solve the numerators.

x=2

Solve the following equation:

To solve this, I can convert to a common denominator of

15:

Now I can compare the numerators:

x1=6
x=7
Note, however, that I could also have solved this by multiplying through on both sides by the common
denominator:

x 1 = 2(3)
x1=6
x=7
When you were adding and subtracting rational expressions, you had to find a common denominator. Now that you have
equations (with an "equals" sign in the middle), you are allowed to multiply through (because you have two sides to

multiply on) and get rid of the denominators entirely. In other words, you still need to find the common denominator, but
you don't necessarily need to use it in the same way.
Here are some more complicated examples:

Solve the following equation:

First, I need to check the denominators: they tell me that x cannot equal zero or 2 (since these values would
cause division by zero). I'll re-check at the end, to make sure any solutions I find are "valid".
There are two ways to proceed with solving this equation. I could convert everything to the common denominator
of 5x(x + 2) and then compare the numerators:

At this point, the denominators are the same. So do they really matter? Not really (other than for saying what
values x can't be). At this point, the two sides of the equation will be equal as long as the numerators are equal.
That is, all I really need to do now is solve the numerators:

15x (5x + 10) = x + 2

10x 10 = x + 2
9x = 12
x = 12/9 = 4/3
Since x =
is valid.

/3 won't cause any division-by-zero problems in the fractions in the original equation, then this solution

Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

x = 4/3
I said there were two ways to solve this problem. The above is one method. Another method is to find the common
denominator but, rather than converting everything to that denominator, I'll take advantage of the fact that I have an
equation here, and multiply through on both sides by that common denominator. This will get rid of the denominators:

3(5x) 1(5(x + 2)) = 1(x + 2)

15x 5x 10 = x + 2
10x 10 = x + 2

9x = 12
x = 12/9 = 4/3
This method gives the same result as the first method. I view this second method as being quicker and easier, but this is
only my personal preference. My students have typically been fairly evenly divided in their preferences for the two
methods. I will do each of the examples in the following pages both ways. You should pick the method that works best for
you.

Solving Rational Equations: Examples

Solve the following equation:

The common denominator here will be x(x 2), and x cannot be zero or 2. I can solve this equation by
multiplying through on both sides of the equation by this denominator:

10 + 4(x 2) = 5(x)
10 + 4x 8 = 5x
4x + 2 = 5x
2=x
Or I can solve by converting to the common denominator and then solving the numerators:

10 + (4x 8) = 5x
10 + 4x 8 = 5x
4x + 2 = 5x
2=x
Either way, the answer I get is:

x = 2 Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

However, I need to check this solution with the original equation. Do you see that I'm going to have a problem
with x = 2? This value would cause division by zero in the original equation! Since the only possible solution
causes division by zero, then this equation really has no solution.
no solution
How did we end up with an invalid solution? We didn't do anything wrong. But notice that, whichever method you use to
solve a rational equation, at some point you're going to get rid of the denominators. For rational equations, the difficulties
come from those denominators. So whenever you solve a rational, always check the solution against the denominators in
the original problem. It is entirely possible (not commonly in homework, but almost always on the test) that a problem will
have an invalid ("extraneous") solution.
You can use the Mathway widget below to practice solving a rational equation. Try the entered exercise, or type in your
own exercise. Then click "Answer" to compare your answer to Mathway's. (Or skip the widget and continue with the
lesson.)
(Clicking on "View Steps" on the widget's answer screen will take you to the Mathway site, where you can register for
a free seven-day trial of the software.)

Solve the following equation:

First I'll need to factor that quadratic, so I can tell what factors I'll have in my common denominator.

x2 6x + 8 = (x 4)(x 2)
That worked out nicely: the factors of the quadratic are duplicates of the other denominators. (This often happens
for these problems.) So the common denominator will be (x 4)(x 2)., and I'll need to remember (at the end)
that x cannot be 2 or 4.
I can convert everything to the common denominator and then solve the numerators:

(x2 4x) + (x 2) = 2
x2 4x + x 2 = 2
x2 3x 4 = 0
(x 4)(x + 1) = 0
x = 4 or x = 1
...or I can multiply through on both sides by the common denominator and solve the resulting equation:

x(x 4) + 1(x 2) = 2
x2 4x + x 2 = 2
x2 3x 2 = 2
x2 3x 4 = 0
(x 4)(x + 1) = 0
x = 4 or x = 1
Either way, I get the same result: x = 4 and x = 1. Checking these solutions against the denominators of the
original equation, I see that "x = 4" would cause division by zero, so I throw that solution out. Then the answer is:

x = 1

Solving Rational Equations

Solve the following equation:

There is only one fraction, so the common denominator is just x, and the solution cannot be
multiplying through on both sides by x:

x2 + x = 72
x2 + x 72 = 0
(x + 9)(x 8) = 0
x = 9 or x = 8
...or I can convert to the common denominator and solve the numerators:

x = 0. To solve, I can start by

x2 + x = 72
x2 + x 72 = 0
(x + 9)(x 8) = 0
x = 9 or x = 8
Either way, the solution is
both solutions are valid.

x = 9 or x= 8. Since neither solution causes a division-by-zero problem in the original equation,

x = 9 or x = 8

Solve the following equation:

First, I note that I cannot have x = 1 or x = 4. Then I notice that this equation is a proportion: the equation is of the form
"one fraction equals another fraction". So all I need to do here is cross-multiply.

10(4(x + 1)) = 15(x + 4)

40x + 40 = 15x + 60
25x + 40 = 60
25x = 20
x = 20/25 = 4/5
Since this solution won't cause any division-by-zero problems, it is valid:

x = 4/5
As an aside, you may find it useful to remember that, when solving equations like these, you are (technically) trying to find the
intersections of the functions on either side of the "equals" sign. For instance, let's return to this equation: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 20032011 All Rights Reserved

Let either side of the equation be its own function:

Graphing these, you can see that they intersect in one spot:

This is the solution, x = 1, that we found earlier. But remember how we intially came up with two solutions? That was because we'd
gotten to where we were ignoring the denominators. If we do that, we get the following functions:

y3 = x2 3x 2
y4 = 2
These graph like this:

As you can see, getting rid of the denominators created an additional (and wrong) solution.

If you have a graphing calculator, by the way, keep in mind that a quick graph can allow you to check your answers (since solutions to
the equations are intersections of the graphs) before you hand in your test. Just make sure your solutions match the x-values of the
intersection points on the graphs.
Solving rational equations is pretty straightforward if you are careful to write each step completely. But (warning!) as soon as you start
skipping steps or doing stuff in your head, you're going to start messing up. So always work neatly and completely. And never forget
to check your solutions, because I can just about guarantee that you'll have one of those "no solution" (or "only one solution works")
problems on your test.

Rational Expressions: Finding the Domain

A "rational expression" is a polynomial fraction, and anything you could do with regular fractions you can do with rational
expressions. However, since there are variables in rational expressions, there are some additional considerations.
When you dealt with fractions, you knew that the fraction could have any whole numbers for the numerator and
denominator, as long as you didn't try to divide by zero. When dealing with rational expressions, you will often need to
evaluate the expression, and it can be useful to know which values would cause division by zero, so you can avoid
these x-values. So probably the first thing you'll do with rational expressions is find theirdomains.

Find the domain of

/x .

The domain is all values that x is allowed to be. Since I can't divide by zero (division by zero isn't allowed), I need
to find all values of x that would cause division by zero. The domain will then be all other x-values. When is this
denominator equal to zero? When x = 0.
Then the domain is "all x not equal to zero".

Determine the domain of

/3. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

The domain doesn't care what is in the numerator of a rational expression. The domain is only influenced by the
zeroes of the denominator. Will "3" ever equal zero? Of course not. Since the denominator will never equal zero,
no matter what value x is, then there are no forbidden values for this rational expression, and x can be anything.
So the domain is "all x".

Give the domain of the following expression:

To find the domain, I'll ignore the "x + 2" in the numerator (since the numerator does not cause division by zero)
and instead I'll look at the denominator. I'll set the denominator equal to zero, and solve. The x-values in the
solution will be the x-values which would cause division by zero. The domain will then be all other x-values.

x2 + 2x 15 = 0
(x + 5)(x 3) = 0
x = 5, x = 3
By factoring the quadratic, I found the zeroes of the denominator. The domain will then be all other x-values:

Find the domain of the following expression:

To find the domain, I'll solve for the zeroes of the denominator:

x2 + 4 = 0
x2 = 4
This has no solution, so the denominator is never zero. Then the domain is "all x".

Rational Expressions: Simplifying

Thinking back to when you were dealing with whole-number fractions, one of the first things you did was simplify them:
You "cancelled off" factors which were in common between the numerator and denominator. You could do this because
dividing any number by itself gives you just "1", and you can ignore factors of "1".
Using the same reasoning and methods, let's simplify some rational expressions.

Simplify the following expression:

To simplify a numerical fraction, I would cancel off any common numerical factors. For this rational expression
(this polynomial fraction), I can similarly cancel off any common numerical or variablefactors.
The numerator factors as (2)(x); the denominator factors as (x)(x). Anything divided by itself is just "1", so I can
cross out any factors common to both the numerator and the denominator.Considering the factors in this
particular fraction, I get:

Then the simplified form of the expression is:

Simplify the following rational expression:

How nice! This one is already factored for me! However (warning!), you will usually need to do the factorization
yourself, so make sure you are comfortable with the process!
The only common factor here is "x + 3", so I'll cancel that off and get:

Then the simplified form is:

Warning: The common temptation at this point is to try to continue on by cancelling off the 2 with the 4. But you cannot do
this. Whenever you have terms added together, there are understood parentheses around them, like this:

You can only cancel off factors (that is, entire expressions contained within parentheses), not terms (that is, not just part
of the contents of a pair of parentheses). To go inside the parentheses and try to cancel off part of the contents is like
ripping off arms and legs of the poor little polynomial trapped inside. It'll be bleeding and oozing and flopping around on
the floor, whimpering plaintively while sadly gazing up at you with big brown eyes...

Well, okay; maybe not. But trying to cancel off only a portion of a factor would be like trying to do this:

Is 66/63 equal to 2? Of course not. And if the above "cancellation" is illegitimate, then so also is this one:

...and it's illegitimate for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON as the previous one was. While it isn't quite so obvious that
you're doing something wrong in the second case with the variables, these two "cancellations" are not allowed because
you're reaching inside the factors (the 66 and 63 above, and thex + 4 and x + 2 here) and ripping off parts of them, rather
than cancelling off an entire factor.

You can only cancel factors, not terms!

You can use the Mathway widget below to practice simplifying a rational expression. Try the entered exercise, or type in
your own exercise. Then click "Answer" to compare your answer to Mathway's. (Or skip the widget and continue with the
lesson.)
(Clicking on "View Steps" on the widget's answer screen will take you to the Mathway site, where you can register for
a free seven-day trial of the software.)
There is one technical consideration which is often overlooked in algebra, but crops up later in calculus. In the exercise
above, when I went from the original expression:

...to the simplified form:

Copyright Elizabeth 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

...I removed a "division by zero" problem. That is, in the original fraction, I could not have plugged in the value x = 3,
because this would have caused division by zero. But in the reduced fraction, x was allowed to be 3. But if the two
expressions have different domains, can they really be equal? No, not exactly. Depended upon the text you're using, this
technicality with the domain may be ignored or glossed over, or else you may be required to make note of it. Specifically,
many (most?) textbooks will accept the following as your answer:

...but some books (and instructors) will require that your simplified form be adjusted, as necessary, in order to have the
same domain as the original form, so the technically-complete answer would be:

Depending on your book and instructor, you may not need the "as long as
answer your instructor is expecting, ask now (before the test).

x isn't equal to 3" part. If you're not sure which

Rational Expressions: More Simplifying

Simplify the following rational expression:

Many students will try to do something like the following:

Is this legitimate? Can the student really do this? (Think "bleeding, oozing...") You can NOT cancel term-by-term!
You can ONLY cancel factors!
So the first thing I have to do (if I'm going to do the simplification correctly) is factor the numerator and the
denominator:

Since the numerator and denominator share a common factor, I can reduce the expression as:

Can I reduce any further? For instance, can I cancel off the x's? (whimpering, bleeding...) Can I cancel a 2 out of
the 4 and the 6? (oozing, flopping...) No! This is as simplified as it's going to get, because there are no remaining
common factors. Then the answer is:

Depending on your text, you might not need that "for x not equal to /2 part". However, since I cancelled off a "2x
5
factor, this removed a division-by-zero problem from the original rational expression: 2x + 5 = 0 for x = /2.

+ 5"

Simplify the following:

The factors in the numerator and denominator are almost the same, but not quite, so they can't be cancelled
yet. If the fraction had been: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

...(that is, plusses instead of minuses), I could have rearranged the terms as:

...and cancelled to get "1", since order doesn't matter in addition. But order most-definitely does matter in
subtraction, so I can't just flip the subtraction to get matching factors. However, take a look at this:

53=2
3 5 = 2
Do you see what happened? When I reversed the subtraction in the second line, I got the same number but the
opposite sign. Then, if I flip a subtraction, I'll need to change the sign. So I can reverse one of the subtractions in
the original rational expression above, as long as I remember to switch the sign out front:

Now I can cancel:

Remember: If "nothing" is left, then a "1" is left, so:

(Depending on the text you're using, you may or may not need the "as long as

x does not equal 2" part.)

You should keep this "flip a subtraction and kick a 'minus' sign out front" trick in mind. Depending on the text you're using,
you may see a lot of this.

Simplify the following expression:

To simplify this, I first need to factor. Then I can cancel off any common factors.

Then the answer is:

(You might not need the "for all x not equal to 3" part.)

Simplify the following expression:

To simplify this, I need to factor; I'll also need to flip the subtraction in the denominator, so I'll need to remember to
change the sign.

Then the answer is:

(You might not need the "for all x not equal to 6" part.)
As you have probably noticed by now, simplifying rational expressions involves a lot of factoring. If you're feeling at all
rusty on this topic, review now: simple factoring, factoring quadratics, and special factoring formulas.

Adding and Subtracting Rational Expressions:

Introduction
Addition and subtraction are the hardest things you'll be doing with rational expressions because, just like with regular fractions, you'll
have to convert to common denominators. Everything you hated about adding fractions, you're going to hate worse with rational
expressions. But stick with me; you can get through this!
Let's refresh by looking at an example with regular fractions:

Simplify the following:

To find the common denominator, I first need to find the least common multiple (LCM) of the three denominators. (For old
folks like me, whenever you see "LCM", think "LCD", or "lowest common denominator". In this context, they're pretty much the
same thing.) There are at least a couple ways of doing this. You could use the "listing" method, where you list the multiples of
the three denominators, until you find a number that is in all three lists, like this:

5: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55,...
25: 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200,...
10: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100,...
The first multiple to occur in all three lists is

50, so this will be the common denominator.

Another method you could use for finding the common denominator is the factor method. It works by finding the prime
factorization of each denominator, and then using a chart to find the factors needed for the common denominator. It looks like
this:

In either case, the common denominator will be 50. To convert each fraction to the common denominator, you multiply each
2
denominator by what it needs in order to turn it into "50". For instance, in the /5, the denominator needs to be multiplied
by 10, since 105 = 50. To keep things fair, you multiply the top by 10 as well. This is because 10/10 = 1, and multiplying
things by 1 doesn't actually change them. So you get:

Converting the other fractions, you get:

Then the answer is:

The process works similarly for rationals.

Simplify the following:

Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

To find the common denominator, I need to find the least common multiple of x,x , and 2x. In the previous problem, I used the
"listing" method to find the common denominator. But in this case, I've got numbers and variables, so just multiplying by
numbers is not going to work. To find the common denominator above, all I had to do was multiply each denominator by 1,
then 2, then 3, then4,... and so on, until I found a match. But what should I multiply the variables by? So "listing" won't work
for rationals. I'll have to use the factor method instead. Here's what I get:

My common denominator will be 2x . To convert the "2/x" to the common denominator, I will need to multiply by
the denominator already has one copy of x but needs a 2 and another x:

Similarly, for the

3/x2, I will multiply by 2/2; and for the 1/2x, I will multiply by x/x. This gives me:

2x/2x, since

Then the answer is:

This expression cannot be further simplified. The x's cannot cancel off, and the 2 cannot cancel into the 6. Why not? Because you
can only cancel factors, not terms. You cannot reach inside the "5x + 6" factor and rip off parts of it to cancel with the denominator.
Don't try!

Adding and Subtracting Rational Expressions:

Examples
As you follow along in these examples, note how I do everything neatly and orderly. You should model your homework after these
exercises, to help minimize errors.

Simplify the following:

These fractions already have a common denominator, so I can just add. But I'll use parentheses on the numerators, to make
sure I carry the "minus" through the second parentheses. (A common mistake would be to take the "minus" sign only onto the
"3x" and not onto the "4".)

Then the answer is:

Simplify the following:

Again, these already have a common denominator, so I can just combine them as they are. But the denominator is a
quadratic, so I'll want to factor the numerator when I'm done, to check and see if anything cancels out.

As you can see, something did cancel. You always need to remember this step: factor the denominator and numerator (if
possible) and check for common factors. By the way, since I was able to cancel off the " x 2" factor, this eliminated a zero
from the denominator. Depending on your book and on your instructor, you may (or may not) need to account for this change
in the domain of the fraction. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved
The complete answer is:

Depending on your instructor, you might not need the "for

x not equal to 2" part. If you're not sure, ask now, before the test.

Simplify the following:

First I have to convert these fractions to the common denominator of 2x . (If you're not sure about the common denominator,
do the factor table, as shown in the second example on the previous page, to check.) Then I'll add and, if possible, cancel off
common factors.

Note how I used parentheses to keep my subtraction straight. I wanted to be sure to carry the "minus" through properly, and
the extra step with the parentheses is very helpful for this. Nothing cancelled in this case, so the answer is:

It isn't common that you will be able to simplify a rational addition or subtraction problem, but you should get in the habit of checking. I
would bet good money that you'll have a problem that simplifies on the test.

Simplify the following:

The two denominators have no common factors, so the common denominator will be
(2x 1)(x 6).

The numerator doesn't factor, so there is no chance of anything cancelling off. It is customary to leave the denominator
factored like this, so, unless your instructor says otherwise, don't bother multiplying the denominator out. The answer is:

Simplify the following:

Don't let this one throw you. The denominator of the "2" is just "1", so the common denominator will be the only other
denominator of interest: "x + 2".

Nothing cancels, so the answer is:

Adding and Subtracting

Rational Expressions: More Examples

Simplify the following:

To find the common denominator, I'll first have to factor the quadratic in the third denominator:

x2 5x 6 = (x 6)(x + 1)
Fortunately for me, the quadratic denominator didn't introduce any new factors to the problem, so the common denominator
will be (x 6)(x + 1).

Since I was able to cancel out the x

+ 1 factor, I eliminated a zero from the denominator. Then the final answer is: Copyright

Elizabeth Stapel 2003-2011 All Rights Reserved

You might not need to include the "for x not equal to 1" part of the solution.

Simplify the following:

First I'll factor the quadratic in the third denominator:

x2 + 3x 10 = (x + 5)(x 2)
Note that these factors almost match the other denominators, but the second fraction's denominator is "backwards". How can
I fix that? I can fix it by remembering the following:

53=2
3 5 = 2
The point of these two subtractions is that, when I reversed the subtraction, I got the same answer except for the sign. So I
can reverse the subtraction in the second fraction's denominator, as long as I remember to also reverse the sign. This is what

that looks like:

I factored the numerator, but nothing cancels out. As you can see, I had to factor a denominator, multiply two of the fractions
to get a common denominator, multiply those two fractions' numerators, add, simplify, and then factor again. You should
expect to see some problems that are at least this involved. They're not as much "complicated" as they are "long and
annoying". Work them out step-by-step as I did above, and you'll get the right answers fairly regularly. In this case, the answer
is:

When you're adding and subtracting rationals, don't try to do a lot of steps in your head, or skip steps or do half-steps (like leaving out
the denominators in your calculations), or you'll pretty much guarantee yourself the wrong answer. Take the time to do every step
completely and carefully as you "practice" on the homework, so you have a good chance of getting these exercises right on the test.

The negative exponents tell me to move the bases, so:

Then I cancel as usual, and get:

simplifying first

multiplying first

squaring first

doing the exponents first

Simplifying Expressions with Exponents:

Complicated Examples

Simplify the following expression:

Before I can cancel anything off, I need to simplify that top parentheses, because it has a negative exponent on it. I can't
4
cancel off, say, the a's, because that a isn't really on top. I can either move the whole parentheses down, square, and then
simplify, or I can take the negative-square through first. I'll show both ways:
moving the parentheses first

squaring first

There are other ways to go about simplifying the above. As long as each step is correct and you get the right answer, your method will
be right. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2004-2011 All Rights Reserved

Simplify the following expression:

This is a special case. The negative exponent says that whatever is on top should go underneath, and whatever is
underneath should go on top. So I'll just flip the fraction (remembering to change the power from a negative to a positive), and
simplify from there:

Warning: This only works if the negative exponent is on the whole fraction.

Simplify the following expression:

There are so many ways I can do this. I'll show four:

flip inside, simplify, negative cube, flip, and simplify:

flip inside, simplify, flip the fraction, and cube:

flip the fraction, simplify inside, cube, flip the negative exponents, and
simplify:

flip the fraction, flip the negative exponents, simplify, and cube:

You should expect to see at least one exercise on your test that is as complicated as this last example. Just take your time, work
slowly and carefully, and don't try to do too much at once. If you work bit by bit, you should be able reliably to get the right answer.

My factor table looks like this:

My table has one row for each

factor, a row for the number line,
and a row for the rational
expression. Each row is split into
columns, with each column
corresponding to one of the
intervals on the number line.

Solving Rational Inequalities: Example

In the previous example, the sign of the rational expression alternated with the intervals. Don't assume that this will always be true.

Solve the following:

This is already factored for me, so I don't have to bother with that. I'll go straight to finding the zeroes (from the numerator)
and the undefined points (from the denominator):

2x 10 = 0

3x=0

x2 + 5 = 0

x2=0

2x = 10

3=x

x2 = 5

x=2

x = 5

no solution

So the number line is split into the intervals

is positive:

(infinity, 5), (5, 2), (2, 3), and (3, +infinity). Now I'll find where each factor

2x 10 > 0

3x>0

x2 + 5 > 0

x2>0

2x > 10

3>x

x2 > 5

x>2

x < 5

x<3

always true

The negative factor, 2x

like this:

10, and the "backwards" factor, 3 x, gave me "backwards" inequalities, so the factor table looks

(The "x 2" factor is listed twice, because that factor occurs twice. If that factor had been cubed, it would have been listed in
2
the table three times. The x + 5 factor has all "plus" signs in its row, because this factor is never zero or negative.)
Looking at the signs in the bottom row, I see that the rational expression is negative on the intervals (5, 2) and (2, 3). Since
this problem is not an "or equal to" inequality, I don't need to consider the endpoints; I know they don't belong in the solution.
But I do need to remember thatx = 2 is not part of the solution, and I must resist the impulse to join these two intervals
together (by throwing in x = 2) to get an incorrect solution of (5, 3).
Since I can't include x

= 2, the solution is two separate intervals:

(5, 2) and (2, 3)

Note: If you'd factored the 2x 10 and the 3 x factors to convert them to the usual form for factors, you would have gotten the
same zeroes, the same intervals, and the same final answer. The only difference would have been the inclusion of an additional factor
in the factor table. First, you'd have factored: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2005-2011 All Rights Reserved

Then you'd have found the endpoints and the signs on each interval:

2>0
always

x+5>0
x > 5

x3>0
x>3

x2 + 5 > 0
x2 > 5

x2>0
x>2

always
And then you'd have filled out your (only slightly longer) factor table, and would then have read off the solution from the bottom row:

The solution would still have been the same two intervals:

(5, 2) and (2, 3)

When working these problems, remember to be careful of constant factors (like "2") and backwards factors (like "3 x"). And make
sure to be careful about which endpoints you include for "or equal to" inequalities. But as long as you are methodical in factoring, in
finding the zeros and the undefined points, and in finding the signs of each factor on each interval, you should consistently get the
right answers.