Answer:
The other side was decreased to approximately .89 times its original size, meaning it was reduced by approximately 11%
Step-by-step explanation:
We can start with the basic equation for the area of a rectangle:
l × w = a
And now express the changes described above as an equation, using "p" as the amount that the width is changed:
(l × 1.1) × (w × p) = a × .98
Now let's rearrange both of those equations to solve for a / l. Starting with the first and easiest:
w = a/l
now the second one:
1.1l × wp = 0.98a
wp = 0.98a / 1.1l
1.1 wp / 0.98 = a/l
Now with both of those equalling a/l, we can equate them:
1.1 wp / 0.98 = w
We can then divide both sides by w, eliminating it
1.1wp / 0.98w = w/w
1.1p / 0.98 = 1
And solve for p
1.1p = 0.98
p = 0.98 / 1.1
p ≈ 0.89
So the width is scaled by approximately 89%
We can double check that too. Let's multiply that by the scaled length and see if we get the two percent decrease:
.89 × 1.1 = 0.979
That should be 0.98, and we're close enough. That difference of 1/1000 is due to rounding the 0.98 / 1.1 to .89. The actual result of that fraction is 0.89090909... if we multiply that by 1.1, we get exactly .98.
There is no distinct pattern, the scatter plot would be up down and spread apart, nothing really correlated.
Answer:
<h2>which question dear..maybe you forgot to add the attachment...</h2>
Answer:
16.5
Step-by-step explanation:
this is very true because it is
Answer:
Idk
Step-by-step explanation:
Idk
