Answer:
As x approaches ∞, y approaches -∞
As x approaches -∞, y approaches ∞
Step-by-step explanation:
F(x) is a fifth degree (odd function ) with negative leading coefficient
If exponent is odd and leading coefficient is negative then end behavior is
As x approaches ∞, y approaches -∞
As you go on the right , f(x) goes down
As x approaches -∞, y approaches ∞
As you go on the left , f(x) goes up
Answer:
1) A. H0: p = 0.30
HA: p not equal to 0.30
2) A. The Independence Assumption is met.
C. The Randomization Condition is met.
D. The Success/Failure Condition is met.
3) Test statistic z = 2.089
P-value = 0.0367
4) C. Reject H0. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the percentage of bills paid by medical insurance has changed.
Step-by-step explanation:
1) This is a hypothesis test for a proportion.
The claim is that there is a significant change in the percent of bills being paid by medical insurance.
As we are looking for evidence of a difference, no matter if it is higher or lower than the null hypothesis proportion, the alternative hypothesis is defined by a unequal sign.
Then, the null and alternative hypothesis are:
2) Cheking the conditions:
The independence assumption and the randomization condition are met as the bills were selected randomly from the population.
The 10% condition can not be checked, as we do not know the size of the population.
The success/failure condition is met as the products np and n(1-p) are bigger than 10 (the number of successes and failures are both bigger than 10).
3) The significance level is assumed to be 0.05.
The sample has a size n=9260.
The sample proportion is p=0.31.
The standard error of the proportion is:
Then, we can calculate the z-statistic as:
This test is a two-tailed test, so the P-value for this test is calculated as:
As the P-value (0.0184) is smaller than the significance level (0.05), the effect is significant.
The null hypothesis is rejected.
There is enough evidence to support the claim that there is a significant change in the percent of bills being paid by medical insurance.
We are told that circle C has center (-4, 6) and a radius of 2.
We are told that circle D has center (6, -2) and a radius of 4.
If we move circle C's center ten units to the right and eight units down, the new center would be at (-4 + 10), (6 - 8) = (6, -2). So step 1 in the informal proof checks out - the centers are the same (which is the definition of concentric) and the shifts are right.
Let's look at our circles. Circle C has a radius of 2 and is inside circle D, whose radius is 4. Between Circle C and Circle D, the radii have a 1:2 ratio, as seen below:
If we dilate circle C by a factor of 2, it means we are expanding it and doubling it. Our circle has that 1:2 ratio, and doubling both sides gives us 2:4. The second step checks out.
Translated objects (or those that you shift) can be congruent, and dilated objects are used with similarity (where you stretch and squeeze). The third step checks out.
Thus, the argument is correct and the last choice is best.