4 units wide would be the answer bc the deminsions of the legs wouldn't change for a rectangle or a triangle
A) maximum mean weight of passengers = <span>load limit ÷ number of passengers
</span><span>
maximum mean weight of passengers = 3750 </span>÷ 25 = <span>150lb
</span>B) First, find the z-score:
z = (value - mean) / stdev
= (150 - 199) / 41
= -1.20
We need to find P(z > -1.20) = 1 - P(z < -1.20)
Now, look at a standard normal table to find <span>P(z < -1.20) = 0.11507, therefore:
</span>P(z > -1.20) = 1 - <span>0.11507 = 0.8849
Hence, <span>the probability that the mean weight of 25 randomly selected skiers exceeds 150lb is about 88.5%</span> </span>
C) With only 20 passengers, the new maximum mean weight of passengers = 3750 ÷ 20 = <span>187.5lb
Let's repeat the steps of point B)
z = (187.5 - 199) / 41
= -0.29
P(z > -0.29) = 1 - P(z < -0.29) = 1 - 0.3859 = 0.6141
</span>Hence, <span>the probability that the mean weight of 20 randomly selected skiers exceeds 187.5lb is about 61.4%
D) The mean weight of skiers is 199lb, therefore:
number</span> of passengers = <span>load limit ÷ <span>mean weight of passengers
= 3750 </span></span><span>÷ 199
= 18.8
The new capacity of 20 skiers is safer than 25 skiers, but we cannot consider it safe enough, since the maximum capacity should be of 18 skiers.</span>
First, find m, the slope of the line.
(1-3)/(5-1) =
-2/4 =
-1/2
Next, choose either point to write the point slope form. I will show the outcome of both points.
1. Using point (1, 3)
y-y1=m(x-x1)
y-3=(-1/2)(x-1)
————————
y-3=-1/2x+1/2
y=-1/2x+7/2
2. Using point (5,1)
y-y1=m(x-x1)
y-1=-1/2(x-5)
————————
y-1=-1/2x+5/2
y=-1/2x+7/2
The outcome is the same.
Answer:
0.8333
Step-by-step explanation:
edge2020
Answer:
The ratio of the income in 2003 would be $54,300.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that the yearly income for an individual with an associate degree in 2001 was $53,166 and 2013 was $59,970, we can determine that in 12 years there was a wage increase of $ 6,804 (59,970 - 53,166). Thus, on average, each year there was a salary increase of $ 567 (6,804 / 12). Therefore, given that in 2003 two years had passed since the starting value of $ 53,166, following this reasoning and without inflationary or recessionary changes, this person's salary should have been $ 54,300 (53,166 + 567 x 2).
