So if the driveway is 45 feet long and he clears 6 feet per hour, we can divide 45 by 6 to find out how many hours it will take for him to clear the driveway and that is essential
45 / 6 = 7.5
45 feet / 6 feet per hour = 7.5 hours to clear the driveway
So now we know that the graph will end when he clears the driveway
If we know he will finish after 7.5 hours then find the graph that ends at the 7.5 hour mark, and that is the last one
Answer:
12 rolls
Step-by-step explanation:
Jason wants to cut roll into pieces that are each 1/2 inches thick. 1/2 is equal to 0.5, so thickness of each roll is 0.5 inches
Total length of the roll is 6 inches. We have to find how many small 0.5 inch rolls can he cut.
In simple words we can say that we have to find: how many 0.5 inches can be out from 6 inches. This type of problem is solved by division. Dividing 6 inches by 0.5 inches will give us: How many 0.5 inches can be cut out from 6 inches i.e. how many 0.5 inches roll can be made from 6 inches roll
6 divided by 0.5 is 12.
This means Jason can cut 12 rolls of sausages each with thickness of 0.5 inches from a roll of 6 inches.
A(n)=4+4(n-1)
a(n)=4+4n-4
a(n)=4n
76=4n
n=19
The sum of any arithmetic sequence (series are infinite) is:
(a+a(n))(n/2)
The average of the first and last terms times the number of terms, in this case we found that n=19 so:
19(4+76)/2=760
Answer:
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
Step-by-step explanation: using the syllogism rules.
Premises 1 (P1) = Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity,
Premises 2 (P2) = so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries
Conclusion (C) = because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
From the argument:
P1 uses "some", that means it's not "all" foreign emissaries person that does not have diplomatic immunity. This means that some other foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity
P2 uses "some", that means it's affirms to that part of P1 which states that some foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity.
The conclusion is valid because the part of P2 which states that some foreign emissaries are vulnerable to arrest, which affirms with P1 which states that Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity. That means no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. This conclusion literally means that if you don't have diplomatic immunity, you are vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
Therefore;
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
