All categories

4 years ago

Kong took 15 percent fewer seconds than Nolan took to complete his multiplication timed test. Kong took 858585 seconds.

Mathematics

1 answer:

Alex4 years ago

4 0

Answer:

100 seconds

Step-by-step explanation:

I've seen this question before. I know you didn't mean to put 858585.

The real question is "Kong took 15% percent fewer seconds than Nolan took to complete his multiplication timed test. Kong took 85 seconds. How many seconds did Nolan take?"

Now let's work!

Kong took 15% fewer seconds than Nolan took.

So Kong took 100%−15%=85%

Whatever Nolan's total was, Kong had 85% of that.

We know Kong took 85 seconds. 85% of Nolan's total is 85 seconds.

=100 seconds. 85%=15 seconds

Which means that Nolan took 100 seconds.

Glad I was able to help!!

You might be interested in

Brian has 3 basketball cards and 5 baseball cards What’s the fraction of the baseball cards

pickupchik [31]

It would be 5/8 .....................

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A number, n, is divided by 4 and then subtracted from 5, resulting in 13. What is the value of n?

borishaifa [10]

Are you sure this question is right? there are no negatives? i’m pretty sure the answer is 72 but if i’m wrong, i’m sorry.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A researcher is 95% confident that the interval from 5.2 hours to 7.8 hours captures u = the true mean amount of time

igor_vitrenko [27]

<h3>Answer: Choice B</h3>

No, this is not a plausible value for the population mean, because 5 is not within the 95% confidence interval.

====================================================

Explanation:

The greek letter mu is the population mean. It has the symbol $\mu$ which looks like the letter 'u' but with a tail at the front or left side.

The question is asking if mu = 5 is plausible if the researcher found the 95% confidence interval to be 5.2 < mu < 7.8

We see that 5 is not in that interval. It's a bit to the left of 5.2

Since mu = 5 is not in the interval, it's not a plausible value for the population mean.

Have we ruled it out with 100% confidence? No. Such a thing is not possible. There's always room for (slight) error. The researcher would need to do a census to be fully confident; however, such practices are very time consuming and expensive. This is the main reason why statistics is important to try to estimate the population with a sample.

8 0

3 years ago

A building blueprint has a scale of 2 inches equal to 25 feet. On the blueprint, the 10-story building has a height of 12 inches

galben [10]

You can do 12 divided by 2
The answer is 6
SO you can do 25 times 6
The actual height is 150 feet

3 0

4 years ago

The length of a rectangle is 5 meters less than twice the width. If the area of the rectangle is 273 meters, find the dimensions

AleksandrR [38]

The length of the rectangle = 16 meters

The width of the rectangle = 10.5 meters

Step-by-step explanation:

Given that,

The Area of the rectangle is 273.

Step 1 :

Let, the width of the rectangle be 'x'

The length of the rectangle is 2x - 5

Step 2 :

Area of the rectangle = length $\times$ width

273 = (2x - 5) x

273 = 2x^2 - 5x

Step 3 :

The equation formed is 2x^2 - 5x -273 = 0

a= coefficient of x^2 = 2

b= coefficient of x = -5

c = constant = -273

Find the roots of the equation, to find the width.

Step 4 :

Find the roots using factorizing method,

ac = 2 $\times$ -273 = -546 and b= -5

Factorizing -546 as -26 $\times$ 21

The product of -26 $\times$ 21 = -546

The sum of -26 + 21 = -5

Step 5 :

The roots of the equation 2x^2 - 5x -273 = 0 are x= -26/2 and x= 21/2

The values of x are x= -13 and x= 10.5

Since the width cannot be a negative value, neglect x= -13

Step 6 :

Therefore,

The width of the rectangle = 10.5 meters

The length of the rectangle = 2x-5

= 2(10.5) - 5

= 21 - 5

length = 16 meters

5 0

3 years ago