Final answer:
The number of electoral votes for State A, given that it has fewer electoral votes than State B and the total electoral votes are x, would be best represented by option (b) x - 1. This choice allows State A to have fewer electoral votes than State B, which aligns with the information provided.
Step-by-step explanation:
If State A has fewer electoral votes than State B, and the total electoral votes for both states are x, then we can express the number of electoral votes for State A using a variable that represents a part of x. Let's represent the electoral votes for State A as a and for State B as b. Since we know State A has fewer electoral votes, a would be less than b, and together they add up to x (a + b = x).
Without additional information, we cannot determine the exact number of electoral votes for State A. However, if we assume each state has at least one electoral vote (since every state has at least 3 electoral votes due to having 2 senators and at least 1 representative), then the answer cannot be x or 2x as they imply State A has the same or double the total electoral votes of both states respectively, which contradicts the information given that State A has fewer electoral votes than State B. Therefore, the most sensible choice from the options provided, without additional context, would be (b) x - 1. This is because it is the only option where the number for State A is less than the total, which would allow for State B to have more electoral votes than State A. Note, though, that this expression is still nonspecific; it implies State B has 1 more electoral vote than State A, which might not be the accurate distribution.