Answer:
The scientist’s conclusion is not appropriate because it is based on a subjective appreciation (“significantly greater than”).
<em>How “greater” is “significantly greater”?
</em>
A more objective and technical approach would be fixing a level of significance, let's say 0.05 or 0.01 for example, measuring the samples means and standard deviations and then proceeding with an appropriate hypothesis testing in order to see if the differences in means are really significant.
Step-by-step explanation:
For this case we can raise a rule of three:
600 employees -------------> 100%
270 employees -------------> x
Where the variable "x" represents the percentage of employees who are satisfied with their salary. So, we have:
Thus, 45% of employees are satisfied with their salary.
Answer:
45%
Answer:
The perimeter of the second square is 36 inches
Step-by-step explanation:
Given
Represent the sides of the squares with S1 and S2.
So:
--- Scale factor
--- perimeter of the first
Required
Calculate P2, the perimeter of the second
Represent the ratios of the perimeter:
Substitute 12 for P1
Equate both scale factors
Convert to fraction
Cross multiply
There is no other data being given . So assuming it is a square the area should be 72×72=5184 sq cm.
Answer:
x = 71º
Step-by-step explanation: