Answer:
ya
Step-by-step explanation:
it is
Answer:
1=6 2=3 4=1 5=5 6=4 7=18 8=8
Answer:
a. 199,389
b. b. From the part A, the question suggests a 0.9% yearly decrease which amounts to 199,389. This answer does not correspond to their recorded figure because the 0.9% decrease was just an average taken over the period. There could be years that the decrease was way smaller than the recorded average, thus using average may not be a good way for calculating population decrease over a period of time.
Step-by-step explanation:
a. Population in 2009 = 192,370
This means that in 2005 the population = 192,370 x 1.009 x 1.009 x 1.009 x 1.009 = 199,389
b. From the part A, the question suggests a 0.9% yearly decrease which amounts to 199,389. This answer does not correspond to their recorded figure because the 0.9% decrease was just an average taken over the period. There could be years that the decrease was way smaller than the recorded average, thus using average may not be a good way for calculating population decrease over a period of time.
3 x 4 - 1 + 2
With parentheses would be - (3x4) - (1+2)
This is because either way, you would still do the multiplication first because of the rule of PEMDAS/GEMDAS which states that parentheses and grouping symbols go first.
Answer:
Linear: greater than 2011
Quadratic: lesser than 2011
Cubic: lesser than 2011
Step-by-step explanation:
At x = 2
Linear regression equation:
y = -6777.54(2) + 110001.04
y = 96445.96
More than 2011
Quadratic: y = -251.10(2)² - 2760.02(2) + 98618.06
y = 92093.62
lesser than 2011
Cubic: y = -6.23(2)² - 101.67(2)² - 3747.49(2) + 100142.23
y = 92190.73
lesser than 2011
