All categories

4 years ago

Which of the following is a composite number?

Mathematics

2 answers:

Licemer1 [7]4 years ago

6 0

A:91 is the answer!!

nexus9112 [7]4 years ago

6 0

The composite number is $\boxed{91}$ . Option (A) is correct.

Further explanation:

Factors are the numbers that are multiplied together to obtain the original number.

The composite numbers are those who have more than 2 factors.

The prime numbers are those who have exactly 2 factors.

Given:

The options are as follows,

(A). 91

(B). 139

(C). 13

(D). 29

Explanation:

The factors of 91 are 1, 7, 13 and 91.

91 have 4 factors.

Therefore, 91 is a composite number.

The factors of 139 are 1 and 139.

139 have 2 factors.

Therefore, 139 is a prime number.

The factors of 13 are 1 and 13.

13 have 2 factors.

Therefore, 13 is a prime number.

The factors of 29 are 1 and 29.

29 have 2 factors.

Therefore, 29 is a prime number.

The composite number is $\boxed{91}.$

Option (A) is correct as 91 is a composite number.

Option (B) is not correct as 139 is a prime number.

Option (C) is not correct as 13 is a prime number.

Option (D) is not correct as 29 is a prime number.

Learn more:

1. Learn more about inverse of the functionhttps://brainly.com/question/1632445.

2. Learn more about equation of circle brainly.com/question/1506955.

3. Learn more about range and domain of the function brainly.com/question/3412497

Answer details:

Grade: Middle School

Subject: Mathematics

Chapter: Composite numbers

Keywords: composite number, prime number, numbers, real number, 91, 139, 13, 29.

You might be interested in

The total rainfall in March was 3.6 inches. In April, the total rainfall was as 1.4 times as much. What was the total rainfall i

UkoKoshka [18]

Answer:

5.04 inches

Step-by-step explanation:

because the total rainfall in March was 3.6 inches and if the total rainfall in April was 1.4 times as much then you would take the total rainfall in March which was 3.6 inches and multiply that by 1.4 because it says the amount in April was 1.4 times as much.

5 0

3 years ago

Which inequality is shown?

gogolik [260]

Answer:

affirmative action

Step-by-step explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

Finding measurements of angles

Rom4ik [11]

We will be using the Angle Addition Postulate in this problem.

This states that if c is on the interior

of <ABD, then m<ABC + m<CBD = m<ABD.

Since m<ABC is 4x + 2, m<CBD is 3x - 7, and m<AVD is 100,

our equation will be 4x + 2 + 3x - 7 = 100.

Solving from here, we first simplify the left side to get 7x - 5 = 100.

Now add 5 to both sides to get 7x = 105.

Dividing both sides by 7, we find that x = 15.

Now we can use the value of x to help us find m<ABC.

Since the m<ABC is 4x + 2, we can substitute a 5 in for x.

This gives us 4(15) + 2 or 60 + 2 which is 62.

So m<ABC is 62°

8 0

3 years ago

2x - 4y = 24 Solve for Y.

ankoles [38]

Answer:

y= -6+ $\frac{x}{2}$

Step-by-step explanation:

Please make me Brainliest

6 0

3 years ago

A researcher wanted to test the claim that, "Seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities." A simple random sample of front-s

GREYUIT [131]

Answer:

$z = \frac{0.00206 -0.0110}{\sqrt{\frac{0.00206*(1-0.00206)}{7765} +\frac{0.0110*(1-0.0110)}{2823}}}= -4.405$

Now we can find the p value since we are using a left tailed test the p value would be:

$p_v = P(z$

Since the p value is very low compared to the significance level of 0.05 we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and then the best conclusion would be:

B) Since p <a, we conclude that this data shows that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

Step-by-step explanation:

We have the following info given from the problem

$X_1 =31$ number of people killed with occupants not wering seat belts

$n_1 = 2823$ number of people not wearing seat belts

$\hat p_1 =\frac{31}{2823}=0.0110$ represent the estimated proportion of people killed not wearing seatbelts

$X_2 =16$ number of people killed with occupants using wering seat belts

$n_2 = 7765$ number of people using wearing seat belts

$\hat p_2 =\frac{16}{7765}=0.00206$ represent the estimated proportion of people killed wearing seatbelts

We want to check if seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities, so we want to test the following system of hypothesis:

Null hypothesis: $p_2 \geq p_1$

Alternative hypothesis: $p_2$

The statistic for this case is given by:

$z = \frac{\hat p_2 -\hat p_1}{\sqrt{\frac{\hat p_1 (1-\hat p_1)}{n_1} +\hat p_2 (1-\hat p_2)}{n_2}}}$

And replacing we got:

$z = \frac{0.00206 -0.0110}{\sqrt{\frac{0.00206*(1-0.00206)}{7765} +\frac{0.0110*(1-0.0110)}{2823}}}= -4.405$

Now we can find the p value since we are using a left tailed test the p value would be:

$p_v = P(z$

Since the p value is very low compared to the significance level of 0.05 we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and then the best conclusion would be:

B) Since p <a, we conclude that this data shows that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

8 0

3 years ago