** DISCLAMIER** am not completely sure. Please do not use my answer unless you are very desperate.
since O,R correspond with A,N I think you half F on each side and add it to 11.2 so
10 divided by 2 = 5
7 is already half.
5 + 7 is 12
12 + 11.2 = 23.2
IF THIS IS WRONG TRY 17
reason for 17:
10 + 7 = 17
If you look at both lines they look the same length as A, N.
Answer:
($13,300,$46,900)
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in he question:
Mean, μ = $30,100
Standard Deviation, σ = $5,600
Chebyshev's Theorem:
- According to theorem atleast
percent of data lies within 2 standard deviations of mean. - For k = 3,
Thus, 89% of data lies within three standard deviation of mean.
Thus, we expect at least 89% of new car prices to fall within ($13,300,$46,900)
Answer: There is not a good prediction for the height of the tree when it is 100 years old because the prediction given by the trend line produced by the regression calculator probably is not valid that far in the future.
Step-by-step explanation:
Years since tree was planted (x) - - - - height (y)
2 - - - - 17
3 - - - - 25
5 - - - 42
6 - - - - 47
7 - - - 54
9 - - - 69
Using a regression calculator :
The height of tree can be modeled by the equation : ŷ = 7.36X + 3.08
With y being the predicted variable; 7.36 being the slope and 3.08 as the intercept.
X is the independent variable which is used in calculating the value of y.
Predicted height when years since tree was planted(x) = 100
ŷ = 7.36X + 3.08
ŷ = 7.36(100) + 3.08
y = 736 + 3.08
y = 739.08
Forward prediction of 100 years produced by the trendline would probably give an invalid value because the trendline only models a range of 9 years prediction. However, a linear regression equation isn't the best for making prediction that far in into the future.
