Steve can run 3.5 miles in 30 minutes. If Steve increases his rate by 12 mile per hour, how far will he run in 2 hours?

If KM = NO and NO = PQ, then KM = PQ.

uysha [10]

The answer is D. <span>transitive property (algebra lesson)
</span>

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A. Do some research and find a city that has experienced population growth.

horrorfan [7]

A. The city we will use is Orlando, Florida, and we are going to examine its population growth from 2000 to 2010. According to the census the population of Orlando was 192,157 in 2000 and 238,300 in 2010. To examine this population growth period, we will use the standard population growth equation $N_{t} =N _{0}e^{rt}$
where:
$N(t)$ is the population after $t$ years
$N_{0}$ is the initial population
$t$ is the time in years
$r$ is the growth rate in decimal form
$e$ is the Euler's constant
We now for our investigation that $N(t)=238300$ , $N_{0} =192157$ , and $t=10$ ; lets replace those values in our equation to find $r$ :
$238300=192157e^{10r}$
$e^{10r} = \frac{238300}{192157}$
$ln(e^{10r} )=ln( \frac{238300}{192157} )$
$r= \frac{ln( \frac{238300}{192157}) }{10}$
$r=0.022$
Now lets multiply $r$ by 100% to obtain our growth rate as a percentage:
$(0.022)(100)$ =2.2%
We just show that Orlando's population has been growing at a rate of 2.2% from 2000 to 2010. Its population increased from 192,157 to 238,300 in ten years.

B. Here we will examine the population decline of Detroit, Michigan over a period of ten years: 2000 to 2010.
Population in 2000: 951,307
Population in 2010: 713,777
We know from our investigation that $N(t)=713777$ , $N_{0} =951307$ , and $t=10$ . Just like before, lets replace those values into our equation to find $r$ :
$713777=951307e^{10r}$
$e^{10r} = \frac{713777}{951307}$
$ln(e^{10r} )=ln( \frac{713777}{951307} )$
$r= \frac{ln( \frac{713777}{951307}) }{10}$
$r=-0.029$
$(-0.029)(100)$ = -2.9%.
We just show that Detroit's population has been declining at a rate of 2.2% from 2000 to 2010. Its population increased from 192,157 to 238,300 in ten years.

C. Final equation from point A: $N(t)=192157e^{0.022t}$ .
Final equation from point B: $N(t)=951307e^{-0.029t}$
Similarities: Both have an initial population and use the same Euler's constant.
Differences: In the equation from point A the exponent is positive, which means that the function is growing; whereas, in equation from point B the exponent is negative, which means that the functions is decaying.

D. To find the year in which the population of Orlando will exceed the population of Detroit, we are going equate both equations $N(t)=192157e^{0.022t}$ and $N(t)=951307e^{-0.029t}$ and solve for t:
$192157e^{0.022t} =951307e^{-0.029t}$
$\frac{192157e^{0.022t} }{951307e^{-0.029t} } =1$
$e^{0.051t} = \frac{951307}{192157}$
$ln(e^{0.051t})=ln( \frac{951307}{192157})$
$t= \frac{ln( \frac{951307}{192157}) }{0.051}$
$t=31.36$
We can conclude that if Orlando's population keeps growing at the same rate and Detroit's keeps declining at the same rate, after 31.36 years in May of 2031 Orlando's population will surpass Detroit's population.

E. Since we know that the population of Detroit as 2000 is 951307, twice that population will be $2(951307)=1902614$ . Now we can rewrite our equation as: $N(t)=1902614e^{-0.029t}$ . The last thing we need to do is equate our Orlando's population growth equation with this new one and solve for t:
$192157e^{0.022t} =1902614e^{-0.029t}$
$\frac{192157e^{0.022t} }{1902614e^{-0.029t} } =1$
$e^{0.051t} = \frac{1902614}{192157}$
$ln(e^{0.051t} )=ln( \frac{1902614}{192157} )$
$t= \frac{ln( \frac{1902614}{192157}) }{0.051}$
$t=44.95$
We can conclude that after 45 years in 2045 the population of Orlando will exceed twice the population of Detroit.

8 0

3 years ago

Adam drew two same size rectangles and divided them into the same number of equal parts. He shaded 1/3 of one rectangle and 1/4

MArishka [77]

he divided each rectangle in 12 identical parts

for the first rectangle he shaded 1/3 of 12 = 4 parts

for the second rectangle he shaded 1/4 of 12= 3 parts

so 12= 3*4 leads to a minimum of 12 parts

:)

6 0

3 years ago

A ratio equivalent to 2:5 is 2 :10

azamat

False... a ratio equivalent to 2:5 is 4:10

2/5 × 2/2 = 4/10

8 0

3 years ago

If angle 1 and angle 2 form linear pair and m angle 1 =50, then m angle = 2

Irina-Kira [14]

Measure of angle 2 would be 130 degrees because since it forms a linear pair the two angles added together have to equal 180 degrees so
180 - 50 = 130

8 0

3 years ago