Here's the pure math:
$$ x[n] = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} X[k] e^{i \frac{2\pi}{N} nk } $$
$$ x[n] = \frac{1}{8} \left[ (5.657 + i 5.657) e^{i \frac{2\pi}{8} n 3 } +(5.657 - i 5.657) e^{i \frac{2\pi}{8} n 5 } \right] $$
$$ e^{i \frac{2\pi}{8} n 5 } = e^{-i \frac{2\pi}{8} n 3 } $$
$$
\begin{aligned}
x[n] &= \frac{1}{8} \left[ (5.657 + i 5.657) e^{i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } + (5.657 - i 5.657) e^{-i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } \right] \\
&= \frac{1}{8} \left[ 5.657 \left( e^{i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } + e^{-i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } \right)
+ i 5.657 \left( e^{i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } - e^{-i \frac{3\pi}{4} n } \right) \right] \\
&= \frac{1}{8} \left[ 5.657 \left( 2 \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right)
+ i 5.657 \left( 2i \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right) \right] \\
&= \frac{5.657}{4} \left[ \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) - \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right] \\
&= \frac{5.657}{4} \sqrt{2} \left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right] \\
&\approx 2 \left[ \cos\left( \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) - \sin\left( \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right] \\
&= 2 \cos\left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n +\frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
\end{aligned}
$$
$$ t = \frac{n}{4000} $$
$$ n = 4000 t $$
$$
\begin{aligned}
x(t) &= 2 \cos\left( \frac{3\pi}{4} 4000t +\frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
&= 2 \cos\left( 3000 \pi t +\frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
&= 2 \cos\left( 1500 \cdot 2 \pi t +\frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Alternatively:
$$
\begin{aligned}
x[n] &= \frac{5.657}{4} \sqrt{2} \left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right] \\
&\approx 2 \left[ \sin\left( \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) - \cos\left( \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \sin \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \right] \\
&= 2 \sin\left( \frac{\pi}{4} - \frac{3\pi}{4} n \right) \\
&= -2 \sin\left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n - \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
&= 2 \sin\left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n - \frac{\pi}{4} + \pi \right) \\
&= 2 \sin\left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n + \frac{3\pi}{4} \right) \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Thanks for the check mark. Here is a little more since this is such an important topic.
That was the pure math approach. You can also do it more conceptually with a few rules about how the DFT works.
First, you have 8 bins, so bin 4 is your Nyquist bin. In this problem, its value is zero. Had it not been, this would have been a more interesting problem. (Dig into the detail of this exchange to find out: How to get Fourier coefficients to draw any shape using DFT? )
Your DC bin is also zero.
For any real valued signal, the DC and Nyquist bins have to have zero imaginary component, and the upper half of the DFT is the complex conjugate mirror of the lower half. This is known as Hermitian symmetry.
$$ X[k] = X^*[N-k] $$
You can add any multiple of N to either index due to the periodicity of the DFT.
The values in your problem fit these criteria so you know you are looking at a real valued signal and only the lower half is significant.
The only non-zero bin value in the lower half is at 3. This means you have either 3 cycles per frame, or 5 cycles per frame (an alias), or any number 3+N or 5+N cycles per frame (more aliases). The problem specifies that there are three cycles per frame so this ambiguity is resolved.
The other big thing to know about a DFT is that a pure tone with a whole number of cycles per frame (k) will land in a single bin with the corresponding index.
If you signal is:
$$ x[n] = A \cos \left( \left[\frac{2\pi}{N}k \right] n + \phi \right) $$
where $ 0 < k < N/2 $
From this definition you can see the argument of the cosine function advances $\frac{2\pi}{N}k$ radians for every sample. For every $N$ samples, $k$ cycles ( $2\pi k$ radians) are completed.
There will be two non-zero bin values in the conventionally unnormalized DFT:
$$ X[k] = N \frac{A}{2} e^{i \phi} $$
and
$$ X[N-k] = N \frac{A}{2} e^{-i \phi} $$
Looking at just the kth bin:
$$ | X[k] | = N \frac{A}{2} $$
$$ \arg( X[k] ) = \phi $$
In your case:
$$ X[3] = 5.657 + i 5.657 $$
$$ |X[3]| = |5.657 + i 5.657| = 5.657\sqrt{2} = 8 \frac{A}{2} $$
$$ A = \frac{5.657\sqrt{2}}{4} \approx 2 $$
$$ \phi = \arg( X[3] ) = \arg(5.657 + i 5.657) = \operatorname{atan2}(5.657, 5.657) = \frac{\pi}{4} $$
Note $ \arg(x + i y) = \operatorname{atan2}(y, x) $
You can now plug these values into the signal definition:
$$
\begin{aligned}
x[n] &= 2 \cos \left( \left[\frac{2\pi}{8}3 \right] n + \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
&= 2 \cos \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} n + \frac{\pi}{4} \right) \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Notice that the DFT doesn't care about the sampling rate. That only comes in as a factor to convert your frequency from cycles per frame to cycles per unit dimension, usually seconds of time.
$$ \frac{3\pi}{4} \frac{radians}{sample} \cdot \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{cycles}{radian} \cdot 4000 \frac{samples}{second} = 1500 \frac{cycles}{second} $$
Notice that the frequency conversion from radians per sample to cycles per second is independent of the DFT frame size.
Or you could have just plugged in $ n = 4000t$ like above.
In response to Dan's last comment under his answer (and food for thought for the OP):
"What it is" (definition) and "How you see it" (interpretation) are two different things. Yes, a FIR filter is a dot product. The result of the dot product is the output signal, making it a filter. For your DFT comparison, you added two elements, a shifting frame and an inverse DFT. Together they may function like a filter, but by definition, the DFT itself is not, and not identical to a FIR filter. Another way to put it, the output of a FIR is in the time domain and the output of the DFT is in the frequency domain (interpretations) even though the mathematical operations are identical (definitionally dot products).
The center-of-mass, aka centroid, interpretation sees the DFT as a weighted average calculation, where a set of Roots of Unity are being averaged and the weighting is the signal. It is a strong argument for a 1/N normalization factor. Spectral leakage is also very well understood in this model, check out the charts in the article.
The DFT can be interpreted through many different lenses, the Linear Algebra transformation probably being the most mathematically meaningful one. Obviously you don't have to know Linear Algebra to understand how the DFT behaves.
The DFT can definitely be seen as a bank, or array, of correlation measurements, using the engineering definition of correlation. Whereas, the math/stats definition is normalized giving a result of one when two signals are completely correlated. The existence of the engineering definition is something I learned here on DSP.SE, and something I think should have been given a different name.
One interpretation does not void another. It is just a different way of looking at the same thing.
P.S. There is a neat trick for calculating a one sample sliding DFT without having to recalculate it each time. I'm pretty sure Lyons wrote an article on it, I'd have to look.
To give some clarification to the distinctions of interpretation I am trying to highlight:
To see the DFT as a special case in a typical Linear Algerbra system of equations solution, take a look at my answer for:
Is there any algorithm to decompose a wave into a set of given frequencies?
This is nearly unrecognizable as being the same mathematical defintion (with a $1/N$ normalization) of the center of mass interpretation.
Here is Figure 12 from my Centroids article:

This is very similar to the OP's case, being a pure real tone with exactly three cycles in the frame. The differences are the number of sample points, the amplitude, and a slight difference in the phase.
The graph of the figure is shown at the top. Notice the color gradient goes from green to red. The six polar graphs at the bottom represent bins zero (DC) through five. The graphs are produced by stretching the signal by a factor of the bin index and then wrapping them around the circle, aka polar graphing with different step sizes.
Which one of these is different from the others? The DC, of course, With a step size of zero, the signal stays on the real axis, and it can clearly be seen that the center of mass will also be on the real axis. In this case, at zero.
Actually, you can also say that bin 3 (the fourth graph) is also the different one, because it is the only one for which the center of mass (Centroid) is not zero. In fact it is $1/2$. Just as striking, the center of mass is located at one radian, just like the phase value in the definition.
Coincidence? I think not. Just a really cool different way to understand the DFT.
Does any one want to claim that these two interpretations resemble each other in any way? Does anybody think either is incorrect?
Nope, me neither.
As for the "filter bank" interpretation, some one else will have to justify that, as I've already said, I consider it very misleading, if not outright incorrect. Then again, perhaps I've never seen a proper explanation.