Answer:
B
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Dotted linear inequality shaded above passes through (0, 4) and (4, 0). Solid exponential inequality shaded below passes through (negative 2,2) & (0,5)
Step-by-step explanation:
we have
----> inequality A
The solution of the inequality A is the shaded area above the dotted line
The dotted line passes through the points (0,4) and (4,0) (y and x-intercepts)
and
-----> inequality B
The solution of the inequality B is the shaded area above the solid line
The solid line passes through the points (0,5) and (-2,2)
therefore
The solution of the system of inequalities is the shaded area between the dotted line and the solid line
see the attached figure
Dotted linear inequality shaded above passes through (0, 4) and (4, 0). Solid exponential inequality shaded below passes through (negative 2,2) & (0,5)
Answer:
1c
1d
Step-by-step explanation:
From the question we are told that
The probability of telesales representative making a sale on a customer call is
The mean is
Generally the distribution of sales call made by a telesales representative follows a binomial distribution
i.e
and the probability distribution function for binomial distribution is
Here C stands for combination hence we are going to be making use of the combination function in our calculators
Generally the mean is mathematically represented as
=>
=>
Generally the least number of calls that need to be made by a representative for the probability of at least 1 sale to exceed 0.95 is mathematically represented as
=>
=>
=>
=>
taking natural log of both sides
=>
Answer:
c)The proof writer mentally assumed the conclusion. He wrote "suppose n is an arbitrary integer", but was really thinking "suppose n is an arbitrary integer, and suppose that for this n, there exists an integer k that satisfies n < k < n+2." Under those assumptions, it follows indeed that k must be n + 1, which justifies the word "therefore": but of course assuming the conclusion destroyed the validity of the proof.
Step-by-step explanation:
when we claim something as a hypothesis we can only conclude with therefore at the end of the proof. so assuming the conclusion nulify the proof from the beginning