Explanation:
wowwww. very nice, keep it up.!
C. Health, safety, and nutrition are closely aligned and interrelated. You can also eliminate the other 3 just based on the question. It specific tells you in the question that the three are related and affect each other. So the other 3 counteract that very statement. But health, safety, and nutrition are actually closely aligned and interrelated.
<h3>
Answer: g(x) = 2sin(x)+3</h3>
=============================================
Explanation:
We start with y = sin(x) or f(x) = sin(x). Recall that y = f(x) since both are outputs.
Vertically stretching by a factor of 2 means we multiply each y value by 2.
This means,
y = sin(x)
2y = 2sin(x)
Then we shift 3 units up. So we add 3 to the y coordinate
2y+3 = 2sin(x)+3
---------------------------------------------------
We can track an example point to see this movement in action. For instance, let's focus on the point (pi/6,1/2) which is on f(x). I'm in radian mode.
Stretching f(x) vertically by a factor of 2 means (pi/6,1/2) moves to (pi/6, 1) after the stretching occurs. I multiplied the y coordinate by 2, and kept the x coordinate the same.
Then we shift up 3 units to go from (pi/6, 1) to (pi/6, 4). You add 3 to the y coordinate and keep the x coordinate the same. Note that plugging x = pi/6 into g(x) = 2sin(x)+3 leads to 4.
Hi !
Which of the following is an appropriate time to change gloves
A) After sneezing, coughing or using a tissue
B) As soon as gloves become torn or dirty
C) After touching potentially contaminated surfaces
Answer: This is a deductive argument, because the truth in the first premises which states: if you get at least 8 hours of sleep a night, you show up to the office 10 minutes early for work. Has validate the conclusion that state: I know for a fact that I was early to work Monday through Friday, so I must have slept at least 8 hours every night.
The underlying reason why the conclusion is valid is because, the conclusion affirms the first premises (P1).
The conclusion can only be valid in this argument if it affirms either P1 or P2.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT WITH THE SAME PATERN IS:
P1: If it rains the soil will be wet.
P2: If it does not rain the soil will not the wet.
Conclusion: it rained, therefore the soil is wet.
