Well, no, that doesn't justify why you have an inflection point there. For example, the second derivative is increasing at x equals negative 2.5. The second derivative is even increasing at x equals negative one, but you don't have inflection points at those places. So I would say this doesn't justify why g has an inflection point. And then the last student responds, the graph of g changes concavity at x equals negative two. That is true, but that isn't a calculus-based justification. We'd wanna use our second derivative here.