The area of the given shape is 220.24 square cm.
Step-by-step explanation:
Step 1;
Area of given shape = Area of the rectangle + Area of the quarter circle.
The given rectangle measures a length of 17 cm and a width of 10 cm. The area of any given rectangle is the multiplication of its length and width. Area of the Rectangle = Length * Width = 17 cm * 10 cm = 170 square cm.
The area of any given circle is π times the square of the radius. The radius of this circle is equal to 8 cm.
Area of the circle = π × r² = 3.14 × 8 × 8 = 200.96 square cm.
200.96 square cm is the area of a full circle with a radius of 8 cm. We divide the area by 4 to convert it into a quarter-circle.
Area of the quarter circle = 200.96 square cm / 4 = 50.24 square cm.
So the quarter circle covers an area of 50.24 square cm.
Step 2;
Area of given shape = Area of the rectangle + Area of the quarter circle
Area of given shape = 170 + 50.24 = 220.24 square cm.
The statement first, and the statement second are correct because the number of dimes is 34, and the number of quarters is 66
What is a linear equation?
It is defined as the relation between two variables, if we plot the graph of the linear equation we will get a straight line.
If in the linear equation, one variable is present, then the equation is known as the linear equation in one variable.
We have:
0.1x + 0.25y = 19.9 and
x + y = 100
Let x = number of dimes
y = number of quarters
After solving the above system of equations by substitution method.

y = 66

x = 34
Thus, the statement first, and the statement second are correct because the number of dimes is 34, and the number of quarters is 66
Learn more about the linear equation here:
brainly.com/question/11897796
#SPJ1
Answer:
The actual dimensions of the field are 28ft x 14ft. I dont know how I am supposed to mak an equation though.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hoped this somewhat helped.
Answer:
Regression to the mean fallacy
Step-by-step explanation:
It assumes that something has returned to normal because of corrective actions taken while it was abnormal. This fails to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.