The answer is true. Hope this helps. Mark brainest
Answer:
B.
Step-by-step explanation:
First, notice that we can cancel out an x in the second term. Thus:
As with the last question, change the sign to multiplication and "flip" the second term:
Multiply straight across:
Cancel the (x+1) term:
Cannot be simplified further.
B.
Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
Answer:
4
Step-by-step explanation:
can also be written as 
. Evaluating this gives 
= 
= 
