Hello! I can help you with this! For this problem in order to find the amount of months it will take for them to have the same amount of money, we can write and solve an equation.
1. Okay. Amira has $80, and saves $40 a month. Max has $40 and saves $50 a month We have the numbers, so we can write the equation. Set it up like this:
80 + 40x = 40 + 50x
We set it up like this, because each girl has some money, but they're saving more to add to the total. Let's start solving. Subtract 40x from both sides. 40x - 40x cancels out. 50x - 40x is 10x. That shortens to 80 = 40 + 10x. Subtract 40 to get both sides by themselves. 40 - 40 cancel out. 80 - 40 is 40. That simplifies to 40 = 10x. Now, divide each side by 10 to isolate the x. 10x/10 cancel out. 40/10 is 4. Let's test this out and see if it works. 40 * 4 is 160. 160 + 80 is 240. 50 * 4 is 200. 200 + 40 is 240. 240 = 240. There. x = 4. Amira and Sasha will have the same amount of money in 4 months.
Answer:
5x + 1 is the simplest form
Step-by-step explanation:
what is equivalent to 10x - (5x -1)
10x - (5x -1) = 10x - 5x + 1
= 5x + 1
Answer:
169
Step-by-step explanation:
becuse it is just L * W
Rather than trying to guess and check, we can actually construct a counterexample to the statement.
So, what is an irrational number? The prefix "ir" means not, so we can say that an irrational number is something that's not a rational number, right? Since we know a rational number is a ratio between two integers, we can conclude an irrational number is a number that's not a ratio of two integers. So, an easy way to show that not all square roots are irrational would be to square a rational number then take the square root of it. Let's use three halves for our example:
So clearly 9/4 is a counterexample to the statement. We can also say something stronger: All squared rational numbers are not irrational number when rooted. How would we prove this? Well, let 
be a rational number. That would mean, 
, would be a/b squared. Taking the square root of it yields:
So our stronger statement is proven, and we know that the original claim is decisively false.
Answer:
I believe it would be 2.857
Step-by-step explanation:
100/35
2.857142857
