Bruh i dead had the same question lol. Sadly no one has answered yet.
For this case, what we are going to do is first define variables.
x: current number of Americans.
y: number of Americans after the next 15 years.
We now write the expression to model the problem, assuming:
"the rate of increase continues in the same way for the next 15-year period".
We have then:
y = 1.76 * x
y = 1.76 * (3.09)
y = 5.44 million Americans
Answer:
the number of Americans on probation in 2010 might be:
y = 5.44 million Americans
Quick steps to solve this.
1. Lets square both. (X +Y)*2 = 7*7
2. Then, X*2 + 2XY + Y*2 = 49
3. Since XY is given to 4, X*2 + 8 + Y*2 = 49
4. Move 8
5. X*2 + Y*2 = 49 - 8
6. X*2 + Y*2 = 41
The answer is "41" Boom!
An equation is formed of two equal expressions. The value of the constant of proportionality is 0.41.
<h3>What is an equation?</h3>
An equation is formed when two equal expressions are equated together with the help of an equal sign '='.
Given there exists a proportional relationship between the number of juice bottles bought, j, and the total cost in dollars and cents. Therefore,
c ∝ j
c = kj
As the relation is represented by the equation c=0.41j. Therefore, the value of the constant of proportionality is 0.41.
Learn more about Equation:
brainly.com/question/2263981
#SPJ1
Answer:
a

b
The nutritionist does not have sufficient evidence to reject the writers claim
Step-by-step explanation:
From the question we are told that
The population mean is 
The sample size is 
The sample mean is 
The standard deviation 
The level of significance is 
Now the
Null Hypothesis is 
Alternative Hypothesis is 
generally the degree of freedom is mathematically represented as



For a significance level of 0.05 and 19 degrees of freedom, the critical value for the t-test is 2.093. This is obtain from the t-distribution table
The test statistic is mathematically evaluated as

substituting values


Since the test statistic is below the critical value then the Null hypothesis can not be rejected
So we can conclude that the nutritionist does not have sufficient evidence to reject the writers claim