I believe it's A. <span>Eva would have been better off selecting the 20-year term policy.
Unde current circumtances, 10-year term policy wouldn't guarantee thesafety of the kids because even after the policy ends, Eva's kids still haven't entered the age where they could find their own income (they would be 12, 13, and 15).
If Eva decided to add another 10 year despite the extra charge, The kids will be covered until they enter the productive age.</span>

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Please help will give brainliest

deff fn [24]

Since the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcomes must be 100%, we can deduce the following:

Cooking in under 20 minutes: 10%
Cooking between 20 and 30 minutes: 85%
Cooking in more than 30 minutes: 5%

In fact, the probabilities of cooking in less than 20 or more than 30 sum up to 15%, which means that the remaining outcome (i.e. cooking time between 20 and 30) must complete this probability to 15, and in fact 15+85=100.

That being said, all three answers are simply a combination of these three scenarios: let C be the cooking time, for aesthetic reasons:

$P(C\geq 20) = P(20 \leq C \leq 30)+P(C\geq30) = 85\%+5\%=90\%$