What are some ways to describe the relationship between sets of numbers?

Each week carrie works 40 hours she spend 15% of her time at register

VLD [36.1K]

Please, share the goal of the problem. If Carrie works 40 hours per week and spends 15% of her time at the register, how much time does she NOT spend at the register?

Subtract 15% from 100%; the result is 85%. Now find 85% of 40 hours:

0.85(40 hours) = 34 hours.

Please note that I invented part of this problem. Next time, share all of the info so that someone can help you solve YOUR particular problem.

3 0

2 years ago

PLEASEEEE SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THIS ITS DUE IN A COUPLE HOURS!!!!! FOR trigonometry

Natasha2012 [34]

Answer:

4/7

Step-by-step explanation:

Tan= Opposite/Adjacent

Tan<f = 4/7

8 0

3 years ago

-3x2( 7x2 - x + 4)<br> What is the answer

Lerok [7]

Answer:

6x-108

Step-by-step explanation:

-3 · 2(7 · 2 - x + 4)

= ((−3)(2))((7)(2) +− x + 4)

= −84 + 6x − 24

= 6x − 108

The answer is 6x - 108

6 0

2 years ago

What is 21 divided by 2 + 1 times 5 mines 2 to the fourth power?

Sever21 [200]

Answer:

IT is 41.5 heres the steps

Step-by-step explanation:

first step 21 divided by 2 = 10.5

Then you do 10.5 + 1 = 11.5

then you do 11.5 times 5 = 57.5

Then 2 times 2 times 2 times 2= 16

then 16 - 57.5 = 41.5 is your answer

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The mayor of a town has proposed a plan for the annexation of a new bridge. A political study took a sample of 1000 voters in th

garri49 [273]

Answer:

$z=\frac{0.42 -0.39}{\sqrt{\frac{0.39(1-0.39)}{1000}}}=1.945$

$p_v =P(Z>1.945)=0.0259$

If we compare the p value obtained with the significance level given $\alpha=0.02$ we have $p_v>\alpha$ so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to FAIL to reject the null hypothesis, and we can said that at 2% of significance the proportion of residents who favored annexation is not significantly higher than 0.39.

Step-by-step explanation:

1) Data given and notation

n=1000 represent the random sample taken

$\hat p=0.42$ estimated proportion of residents who favored annexation

$p_o=0.39$ is the value that we want to test

$\alpha=0.02$ represent the significance level

Confidence=98% or 0.98

z would represent the statistic (variable of interest)

$p_v$ represent the p value (variable of interest)

2) Concepts and formulas to use

We need to conduct a hypothesis in order to test the claim that the proportion is higher than 0.39:

Null hypothesis: $p\leq 0.39$

Alternative hypothesis: $p > 0.39$

When we conduct a proportion test we need to use the z statistic, and the is given by:

$z=\frac{\hat p -p_o}{\sqrt{\frac{p_o (1-p_o)}{n}}}$ (1)

The One-Sample Proportion Test is used to assess whether a population proportion $\hat p$ is significantly different from a hypothesized value $p_o$ .

3) Calculate the statistic

Since we have all the info requires we can replace in formula (1) like this:

$z=\frac{0.42 -0.39}{\sqrt{\frac{0.39(1-0.39)}{1000}}}=1.945$

4) Statistical decision

It's important to refresh the p value method or p value approach . "This method is about determining "likely" or "unlikely" by determining the probability assuming the null hypothesis were true of observing a more extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternative hypothesis than the one observed". Or in other words is just a method to have an statistical decision to fail to reject or reject the null hypothesis.

The significance level provided $\alpha=0.02$ . The next step would be calculate the p value for this test.

Since is a right tailed test the p value would be:

$p_v =P(Z>1.945)=0.0259$

If we compare the p value obtained with the significance level given $\alpha=0.02$ we have $p_v>\alpha$ so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to FAIL to reject the null hypothesis, and we can said that at 2% of significance the proportion of residents who favored annexation is not significantly higher than 0.39.

4 0

2 years ago