Answer:
b. y = 1000x
Constant of proportionality = 1,000
Step-by-step explanation:
The equation that represents a proportional relationship between variable x and y usually takes the following form, y = kx.
Where,
k = constant of proportionality.
From the three given equations, the only equation that takes the form is b. y = 1000x.
The constant of proportionality (k) of the equation = 1,000.
Answer:
x= 45
Step-by-step explanation:
2x+x + 45 = 180
Combine like terms
3x+45 =180
subtract 45 from each side
3x+45-45= 180-45
3x = 135
Divide each side by 3
3x/3 = 135/3
x = 45
Marta’s equation has a positive y-intercept, but the scatterplot shows a negative correlation.
<h3>What is a scatter plot?</h3>
The scatter plot is a manner in which data is presented as dots on a cartesian axes, The line of best fit is a description of the data that is presented in the scatter plot.
Hence, Marta is incorrect because Marta’s equation has a positive y-intercept, but the scatterplot shows a negative correlation.
Missing parts;
Marta believes that the equation of the line of best fit for the scatterplot below is y=-5/9x+23/9. Which statement best summarizes why Marta is likely incorrect?
Marta’s equation has a positive y-intercept, but the scatterplot suggests a negative y-intercept.
Marta’s equation has a positive y-intercept, but the scatterplot shows a negative correlation.
Marta’s equation has a negative slope, but the scatterplot suggests a negative y-intercept.
Marta’s equation has a negative slope, but the scatterplot shows a positive correlation.
Learn more about scatter plot:brainly.com/question/13984412
#SPJ1
Answer:
step 2
and then also in step 3 compensating the error in step 2
Step-by-step explanation:
I think I just answered this for another post.
sin(a - b) = sin(a)cos(b) - cos(a)sin(b)
so, step 1 is correct :
sin(A - 3pi/2) = sin(A)cos(3pi/2) - cos(A)sin(3pi/2)
but step 2 suddenly and incorrectly switched that central "-" to a "+".
yes, sin(3pi/2) = -1, but that is still an explicit factor in step 2. so it was not used to flip the central operation from subtraction to addition, and therefore this change was a mistake.
then, in step 3, another error was made by just ignoring the "-" sign of "-1" and still keeping the central "+" operation. this error compensated for the error in step 2 bringing us back by pure chance to the right result.