Answer: Irrational
Step-by-step explanation:
The only rational square roots are those that are perfect squares and 38 isn't a perfect square.
Examples of perfect squares: 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, etc.
8:00 a.m all the way until 2:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m is
4 hours.
12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m is
2 hours8:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. is
6 hours.
6 hours out of a 24 hour day.
![\frac{6}{24} =\frac{x}{100}\\\\\frac{1}{4} =\frac{x}{100}\\\\\sf{Cross~multiplying}\\\\100 = 4x\\\\\sf{Divide~4~on~both~sides](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cfrac%7B6%7D%7B24%7D%20%3D%5Cfrac%7Bx%7D%7B100%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B4%7D%20%3D%5Cfrac%7Bx%7D%7B100%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C%5Csf%7BCross~multiplying%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C100%20%3D%204x%5C%5C%5C%5C%5Csf%7BDivide~4~on~both~sides)
![\boxed{\bf{x =25}}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cboxed%7B%5Cbf%7Bx%20%3D25%7D%7D)
The school holds classes for
25% of the 24-hour day.
Answer:
38
Step-by-step explanation:
So fill in the variables and solve from there:
(5)(4)+2(3)^2 = ?
20 + (2)(9) = ?
20 + 18 = ?
? = 38
Answer:
La altura de Juan por lo tanto es de 1.6 metros de altura
Step-by-step explanation:
Segun los datos que se encuentran en el ejercicio, tenemos lo siguiente:
Juan proyecta una sombra de 2 metros en el momento en que Pedro que mide 1,80.
Supongamos que x es la altura de juan que tenemos que calcular.
La altura de Juan por lo tanto la podemos calcular de la siguiente manera con la siguiente formula:
x= (1.8 metros/2.25 metros)*2
x=1.6 metros
La altura de Juan por lo tanto es de 1.6 metros de altura
In my opinion, Darrin's inference is wrong because according to given question, "<em>Darrin surveyed a random sample of 10 students from his science class about their favorite types of TV shows.</em><em>"</em><em> </em>
This line provides the information that the survey is taken randomly. Also, if Darrin had taken some other students, then the ineference of other new students compared with previously surveyed students will be different.
This frankly tells that <em>t</em><em>h</em><em>e</em><em> </em><em>p</em><em>r</em><em>o</em><em>b</em><em>a</em><em>b</em><em>i</em><em>l</em><em>i</em><em>t</em><em>y</em><em> </em><em>i</em><em>s</em><em> </em><em>d</em><em>i</em><em>f</em><em>f</em><em>e</em><em>r</em><em>e</em><em>n</em><em>t</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em>l</em><em>w</em><em>a</em><em>y</em><em>s</em><em>.</em>
Therefore, Darrin's inference is wrong or invalid.