All categories

3 years ago

Question:

1 answer:

6 0

The answer is y=20 because if they’re proportional then they increase at the same rate. to get from c=3 to x=15 u multiply by 5 and dice x and y are proportional you would multiply the y value, y=4 by 5 to get y=20

You might be interested in

Sam started with savings of $2,500 and adds $40 to his savings each week. Marshall started with $7,300 in savings and spends $60

Oliga [24]

The number of weeks it will take both Sam and Marshall to have the same amount of savings in their accounts is 48 weeks

Given:

Amount with Sam = $2,500

Additional savings each week = $40

Amount with Marshal = $7,300

Amount spent each week = $60

let

x = number of weeks

Sam equation:

2500 + 40x

Marshall's equation:

7300 - 60x

Equate both

2500 + 40x = 7300 - 60x

collect like terms

2500 - 7300 = - 60x - 40x

-4800 = -100x

divide both sides by - 100

x = -4800 / -100

x = 48 weeks

Therefore, the number of weeks it will take both Sam and Marshall to have the same amount of savings in their accounts is 48 weeks

brainly.com/question/8957185

5 0

2 years ago

Four to the thrid power

soldier1979 [14.2K]

64

4 x 4 x 4

Hope it helps

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

In recent years more people have been working past the age of 65. In 2005, 27% of people aged 65–69 worked. A recent report from

Taya2010 [7]

Answer:

a) The point estimate of the proportion of people aged 65–69 who are working is p=0.3 or 30%.

b) We can express this null and alternative hypothesis as:

$H_0: \pi=0.27\\H_1:\pi\neq0.27$

c) We conclude that there is not enough evidence that the proportion of people aged 65–69 who are working has increased from 2005.

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Develop a point estimate of the proportion of people aged 65–69 who are working

If we take into account the sample taken, the point estimate is

$p=\frac{180}{600} =0.3$

b) Set up a hypothesis test so that the rejection of h0 will allow you to conclude that theproportion of people aged 65–69 working has increased from 2005

To conclude some claim, we have to reject the null hypothesis. In this case, to claim that the proportion has changed and the mean is no longer 27%, we have to reject the null hypotesis that π=0.27.

We can express this null and alternative hypothesis as:

$H_0: \pi=0.27\\H_1:\pi\neq0.27$

c) Conduct your hypothesis test using α=0.05. What is your conclusion?

First we calculate the standard deviation, as we will need it to calculate the test statistic:

$\sigma=\sqrt{\frac{\pi(1-\pi)}{N} } =\sqrt{\frac{0.27(1-0.27)}{600} }=0.01812$