This doubt is really about the three conditions that make a logarithm defined at all — once you internalise those, every 'range of base' question becomes mechanical.
By definition, means . For this to work as a proper function, three conditions must hold together: argument , base , and base .
Why each one? If , then for every , so has no solution when and infinitely many when — useless either way. If or , real powers aren't reliably defined: blows up, and something like isn't real. So the allowed range for a base is
Note that is perfectly legal — e.g. works fine; a fractional base just flips the inequality when you remove the log.
Now the 'why not 2 and 5' part. The base expression here has roots 2 and 5 — that's where those numbers come from: base . Apply the base conditions to it.
Base : . A product of two factors is positive when both have the same sign, which gives or . At exactly and the base equals , and does not exist — that is precisely why these two values are thrown out. For , one factor is negative and the other positive, so the base is negative — rejected as well.
Base : set . These two values must also be dropped. They're irrational, so in integer-value versions of this question they don't remove any integer.
So the checklist for any 'is this log defined' question is always: argument , base , base — test every candidate against all three. The base-equals-1 check is the one almost everybody forgets.
Final answer: the base must lie in ; with base , valid are or (excluding ), and are rejected because they make the base .