Question 1165047
<br>
The intent of the problem is good... but the statement of the problem as it is is insufficient.<br>
Obviously in this case I would prefer exponential:
$50,000, increased by 10% per year --> salary in 40th year $2,262,963
$50,000, increased by $10,000 per year --> salary in 40th year $440,000<br>
But "exponential" by itself doesn't guarantee faster growth:
$50,000, increased by 0.01% per year --> salary in 40th year $50,200<br>
And "exponential" by itself doesn't even mean increasing.  A salary modeled by a decreasing exponential function is clearly worse than one that is increasing linearly.<br>