Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Change the mixed number into a regular fraction.
Subtract the numerator.
As a mixed number:
2 1/2 is in mixed fraction. So let's first make it into improper fraction.
(2*2 + 1) / 2 = 5/2
5/2 of 7.25 = (5*7.25) / 2 = 18.125
in short, 18.125 is the answer
Answer:
A
Step-by-step explanation:
when you plug in 2,11
11 = 3*2 +5 that is correct
13 = 3*3 +5 that is not correct
only 2,11 works
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
( 
, 
)
( 
, 
)
rate of change or slope m = 
= 
y = mx + b
"b" is y-intercept
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
