(6,-4) that’s what I assume
A common misconception in statistics is confusing correlation with causation. If two events are correlated, it merely means that they share the same behaviour over time, but it doesn't imply in any way that those event are related by a common cause, or even worse, that one implies the other.
You can find several (even humorous) counter examples online. For example, if you plot the number of reported pirates assault against the global temperature in the last years, you'll se that temperature is rising (unfortunately...) while pirates are almost disappearing.
One could observe this strong negative correlation and claim that hotter climate has solved the pirate issue. Of course this is a joke, but it explains why you shouldn't confuse correlation with causation.
Answer:
(x, y) = (5, -2)
Step-by-step explanation:
A graphing calculator provides a quick and easy way to find the solution.
_____
There are several other ways to solve these equations. Or you can estimate where the answer might be using logic like this:
The intercepts of the first equation are ...
- x-intercept = 26/4 = 6 1/2
- y-intercept = -26/3 = -8 2/3
So the graph of it will form a triangle with the axes in the 4th quadrant.
The intercepts of the second equation are ...
- x-intercept = 11/3 = 3 2/3
- y-intercept = 11/2 = 5 1/2
So the graph of it will form a triangle with the axes in the 1st quadrant. The x-intercept of this one is less than the x-intercept of the first equation, so the two lines must cross in the 4th quadrant.
The only 4th-quadrant answer choice is (5, -2).
Convert the percentage into a number then divide it by the income.