The questions are;
a) What is the probability that both Alice and Betty watch TV tomorrow?
b) What is the probability that Betty watches TV tomorrow?
<span>c) What is the probability that only Alice watches TV tomorrow?
the probability of alice turning on the tv is 0.6
the probability of betty watching the tv once the tv is on is 0.8
a)
in probability when the word and is mentioned then that means that both the conditions should occur therefore the probability of both instances are multiplied
the probability of alice watching tv - 0.6
probability of betty watching tv is 0.6 * 0.8 = 0.48
since the </span>probability of betty watching tv depends on both alice switching on the tv and of betty actually watching tv
therefore the probability of both watching tv = 0.6 * 0.48 = 0.288
b)
probability of betty watching tv alone is dependent upon alice turning on the tv
this is conditional probability, where one condition is depedent on another condition, in this case both alice should turn on the tv and betty should watch tv.
Therefore we have to multiply the probabilities of both events
probability of betty watching tv as calculated above is 0.6 * 0.8 = 0.48
c)
only alice watching tv means that betty doesn't watch
the probability of betty not watching the tv = 0.6 * 0.2 = 0.12
this too, 2 events should occur. Alice should switch on the tv and betty should not watch tv. Therefore these 2 probabilities should be multiplied
therefore probability of only alice watching tv = 0.6 * 0.12 = 0.072
Answer:
positively.
Explanation:
The <u><em>correlation </em></u>between education and income is positive a more educated person will always have a better income than one that is not. But along the statistical distribution of this<u><em> correlation</em></u> there are people that <u><em>deviate </em></u>for the curve <u><em>(standar deviation)</em></u> and even though they are educated they do not earn as much money to others that have the same level of education.
Answer: c. Structural unemployment
Explanation:
Susie lost her job due to competition, someone could offer better than what she offer, the loss of job was not as a result of downsizing but rather a structural unemployment.
Answer:
C) a positive result from regulatory and economic environmental forces.
Explanation:
In the short run the whole economy will benefit, more American jobs will be created, consumers will probably get good cars at even lower prices, but on the long run the scenario may not be that good for everyone. If Toyota builds the plant, it will be the result of economic and political pressures, and that is a game that two can play, just ask farmers about the trade deal with China.
On the other hand, this is a type of deja vu (or been there, done that), and it ended up with GM and Chrysler bankrupt and Ford barely surviving. This types of policies were enforced in the 1980s by president Reagan and the famous "Made in the USA" by Bruce Springsteen. Back then Honda had a small factory and Toyota was starting to consider building a plant in the US, Nissan hadn't showed up yet. Fast forward a few years and the only good American vehicles are pickups, the Japanese brands wiped out the rest. The country is full of Camrys, Accords, Civics, Corollas, CRVs and Rav4s. They are great cars, too great for the American car manufacturers to compete against. Who knows, with this type of policies maybe in 10 years the only American car manufacturer left will be Tesla.
This is like playing with fire on top of a fuel truck.