The answer is Option B
We know that this inequality doesn't require any negative number division, there's no need to switch the ≤'s into ≥'s.
So now, all we have to do is subtract 25 from every number, giving us <u>5≤x≤50</u>
Answer:
a bc I think it's right idk really
Step-by-step explanation:
jdlaifnshfjtjtjfjdjsjdurbxusnejskshduanwufnrudjdjfkgkgjdjfjgktjvinehdovndintivnsjvolebvinebfirbxjbwhgoenchbtijbegijrgcihegcinrhd
Answer:
Based on the 95% confidence interval for the difference in population proportion, there is convincing statistical evidence that he is correct
Step-by-step explanation:
The proportion from the sample of people from his party that support the law = 70%
The number the members of the politicians political party that support the law = 550 people
The proportion from the sample of people from the other party that support the law = 65%
The number the members of the politicians political party that support the law = 420 people
The confidence level of the test = 95%
The given confidence interval for the difference in proportion, C.I. = (-0.010, 0.110)
Given that the 95% confidence interval for the difference in population proportion ranges from -0.010, to 0.110, it is 95% certain that 0 is among the likely difference in proportion between the two populations and therefore, there is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that there is no difference in the proportion of the members of either political that support the proposed new traffic law.
Answer:
2x + 4 = 10 = x =3
Step-by-step explanation:
09 - 31 = 0 (the variable x is not present in the given system)
0 +5=6 (the variable x is not present in the given system)
2x + 4 = 10 = x = 3
09-1=4 (the variable x is not present in the given system)
51 - 7 = 1 (the variable x is not present in the given system)
3x + 1 = 9 = x = 8/3
