1.50 + 0.50(x-1) <u><</u> 25
1.50 + 0.50x - 0.50 <u><</u> 25
1 + 0.50x <u><</u> 25
<u>-1 -1</u>
0.50x <u><</u> 24
<u> ÷0.50 ÷0.50</u>
x <u><</u> 48
1.50 + 0.50x <u><</u> 25 ; x <u><</u> 47 miles 3rd option in the choices.
To check:
1.50 + 0.50(47) <u><</u> 25
1.50 + 23.50 <u><</u> 25
25 <u><</u> 25
Answer:
sorry i cant see the triangle can u describe it to me cause then i can edit my answer and put the right answer
Step-by-step explanation:
please don't be mad i really don't want any one to yell at me please i've already had a bad day so far so please don't yell at me
Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
She could withdraw $25 for 12 weeks and would have $200 left