Answer:
135 and 135
Step-by-step explanation:
The computation is shown below:
The number of examiners who passed in only one subject is as follows
= n(E) - n(E ∩M) + n(M) - n(E ∩M)
= (80 - 60 + 70 - 60)%
= 30%
Now the number of students who passed in minimum one subject is
n(E∪M) = n(E) + n(M) - n(E ∩M)
= 80 - + 70 - 60
= 90%
Now the number of students who failed in both subjects is
= 100 - 90%
= 10% of total students
= 45
So total number of students appeared for this 450
So, those who passed only one subject is
= 450 × 30%
= 135
Now the Number of students who failed in mathematics is
= 100% - Passed in Mathematics
= 100% - 70%
= 30% of 450
= 135
Answer:
Correlation does not always imply causation. (It's not correct)
Step-by-step explanation:
Correlation tests 2 variables' relationship, but just because they are related does not mean they necessarily cause each other.
Answer:
Your table might look something like this:
The dads steps:
3
6
9
12
15
18
Sons steps:
5
10
15
20
25
30
You can notice the pattern. If dad walks 3 steps, son walks 5. If dad walks another 3, son walks another 5. And so on. This means dad walks 12 steps when the sin walks 20 steps.
Step-by-step explanation:
The ratio is 3:5. This means dad wlaks 3 steps so son must walk 5 steps basically. So.......... You can now create the table. Y I just have to multiply or divide each side ( of the colon:) so. Whatever you do to one side, you do to the other side. If you x3 on one side, you do it to other. Same goes for division. In the 'table' I did above, I x2 to get 6 and 10. Then I took the 3 and the 5 again and timsed those by 3. You can also change the 6 and the 10. So:
3:5
Then x2
6:10
Then I take the top layer (you can either choose to change the top layer, or layer above as long as you do the same thing to each side. Remember, only x and ÷. No + or-.) and I x3
9:15
Then I could take 9 and 15 and x5
45:75
It's crazy that all these. Ratios mena the same thing! 45 steps from dad would take the son 75 steps. You can also divide the last ratio of 45:75 to find the one you started with, 3:5.
So you get the idea.
It is probably best to do what I did in the table in the answer part because I did a pattern. Take the top layer, and x2, then x3, then x4, ect. Rather then doing random things.
We know that
scale factor=measure larger triangle/measure smaller triangle---->18/12
scale factor=1.5
so
measure larger triangle=scale factor*measure smaller triangle
for the leg in the smaller triangle equal to 5
measure larger triangle=1.5*5-----> 7.5
the answer is
7.5
