All categories

3 years ago

ANSWER ASAP PLEASE!!

Mathematics

2 answers:

Sidana [21]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

A,C, E,F

Step-by-step explanation:

just took the test

aliya0001 [1]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

Clayton could use the relationship (x,y)→ (y,x) to find the points of the image

C’ will remain in the same location as C because it is on the line of reflection

The image and the pre-image will be congruent triangles

The image and pre-image will not have the same orientation because reflections flip figures

Step-by-step explanation:

<u><em>Verify each statement</em></u>

case A) Clayton could use the relationship (x,y)→ (y,x) to find the points of the image

The statement is true

we know that

The rule of the reflection of a point across the line y=x is equal to

(x,y)→ (y,x)

case B) Clayton could negate both the x and y values in the points to find the points of the image

The statement is false

case C) C’ will remain in the same location as C because it is on the line of reflection

The statement is true

If a point is on the line of reflection (y=x), then the point remain in the same location because the x and y coordinates are equal

case D) C’ will move because all points move in a reflection

The statement is false

Because C' is on the line of reflection (y=x), then the point remain in the same location

case E) The image and the pre-image will be congruent triangles

The statement is true

Because the reflection not change the length sides of the triangle or the measure of its internal angles. Reflection changes only the orientation of the figure

case F) The image and pre-image will not have the same orientation because reflections flip figures

The statement is true

Because in a reflection across the line y=x, the x coordinate of the pre-image becomes the y-coordinate of the image and the y-coordinate of the pre-image becomes the x-coordinate of the image

You might be interested in

A+restaurant+bill+before+tax+is+$15. 50. +if+the+sales+tax+is+8%+and+a+15%+tip+is+added,+what+is+the+total+cost+of+the+meal?

ZanzabumX [31]

Answer:

$19.07

Step-by-step explanation:

Look at image above...

7 0

1 year ago

In parallelogram LMNO,NO=10.2 and LO=14.7 what is the perimeter of parallelogram LMNO?

Shtirlitz [24]

In parallelogram LMNO, NO = 10.2, and LO = 14.7. The basic property of a parallelogram that the opposite sides in a parallelogram are equal; so, two sides are 10.2 (NO=LM=10.2), and two sizes are 14.7, = (LO=MN=14.7).
The perimeter of the parallelogram LMNO is:
P= 2NO + 2LO.
P= (2 x 10.2)+(2 x 14.7).
P= 20.4 + 29.4.

So, P= 49.8.

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

5/6 times 1/3. dived by 2/3 divided 1/2

mrs_skeptik [129]

Answer:

5/6 (please give branliest)

Step-by-step explanation:

5/6 * 1/3 = 5/18

5/18 / 2/3 = 5/12

5/12 / 1/2 = 5/6

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Will improving customer service result in higher stock prices for the companies providing the better service? "When a company’s

Orlov [11]

Question:

Company 2007 Score 2008 Score

Rite Aid 73 76

Expedia 75 77

J.C. Penney 77 78

a. For Rite Aid, is the increase in the satisfaction score from 2007 to 2008 statistically significant? Use α= .05. What can you conclude?

b. Can you conclude that the 2008 score for Rite Aid is above the national average of 75.7? Use α= .05.

c. For Expedia, is the increase from 2007 to 2008 statistically significant? Use α= .05.

d. When conducting a hypothesis test with the values given for the standard deviation,

sample size, and α, how large must the increase from 2007 to 2008 be for it to be statistically significant?

e. Use the result of part (d) to state whether the increase for J.C. Penney from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant.

Answer:

a. There is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the increase in satisfaction score for Rite Aid from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant

b. There is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the 2008 Rite Aid score, is above the national average of 75.7

c. The statistical evidence support the claim of a significant increase from 2007 to 2008

d. 1.802 and above is significant

e. The increase of J. C. Penney from 2007 is not statistically significant.

Step-by-step explanation:

Here we have

n = 60

σ = 6

μ₁ = 73

μ₂ = 76

We put H₀ : μ₁ ≥ μ₂ and

Hₐ : μ₁ < μ₂

From which we have;

$z=\frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}} = \frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}}}$

Plugging in the values we have

$z = \frac{(73-76)}{\sqrt{\frac{2\times 6^{2} }{60_{}}}}} = -2.7386$

The probability, P from z function computation gives;

P(Z < -2.7386) = 0.0031

Where we have P < α, we reject the null hypothesis meaning that there is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the increase in satisfaction score for Rite Aid from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant

b. To test here, we have

H₀ : μ ≤ 75.7

Hₐ : μ > 75.7

The test statistic is given as follows;

$z=\frac{\bar{x}-\mu }{\frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{n}}} = \frac{76-75.7 }{\frac{6 }{\sqrt{60}}} = 0.3873$

Therefore, we have the probability, P given as the value for the function at z = 0.3873 that is we have;

P = P(Z > 0.3873) = P(Z < -0.3873) = 0.3493

Therefore, since P > α which is 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, that is there is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the 2008 Rite Aid score, is above the national average of 75.7

c. Here we put

Null hypothesis H₀ : μ₁ ≥ μ₂

Alternative hypothesis Hₐ : μ₁ < μ₂

The test statistic is given by the following equation;

$z=\frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}} = \frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}}}$

Plugging in the values we have

$z = \frac{(75-77)}{\sqrt{\frac{2\times 6^{2} }{60_{}}}}} = -1.8257$

The probability, P from z function computation gives;

P(Z < -1.8257) = 0.03394

The statistical evidence support the claim of a significant increase

d. For statistical significance at 0.05 significant level, we have z = -1.644854

Therefore, from;

$z=\frac{(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}})-(\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}-\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}}$ . we have;

$z \times \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}} + (\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{} ={(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}})$

Which gives

${(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}}) = z \times \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}} + (\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{} = -1.644854 \times \sqrt{\frac{2\times 6_{}^{2} }{60_{}}}} + 0 = -1.802$

Therefore an increase of 1.802 and above is significant

e. Based on the result of part d. we have for J.C. Penney from 2007 to 2008 an increase of 1 which is less than 1.802 at 5% significant level, is not significant.

5 0

2 years ago

Unit rate of 100 calories in 5 crackers

Nimfa-mama [501]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers