The equation for that statement is 58 * x - 136 = -70
Answer:
25 ft^2
Step-by-step explanation:
In direct variation, if y varies directly with x, then the equation has the form
y = kx,
where k is the constant of proportionality. y is proportional to x.
Let's call the area y and the distance x.
Here, the area varies with the square of the distance, so the equation has the form
y = kx^2
Here, y is proportional to the square of x.
We can find the value of k by using the given information.
y = kx^2
When x = 20 ft, y = 16 ft^2.
16 = k(20^2)
k = 16/400
k = 1/25
The equation of the relation is:
y = (1/25)x^2
Now we use the equation we found to answer the question.
What is y (the area) when x (the distance) is 25 ft?
y = (1/25)x^2
y = (1/25)(25^2)
y = 25
Answer: 25 ft^2
Just because the 3 is less than 5 doesn't mean it's less. What max did wrong was automatically see the first number and say it was greater/least because it's just the first digit. 36,594,145 is greater than 5,980,251 because the last 6 digits are invisible right now so thing about the numbers before the first comma- 36 and 5. Which number is greater? 36 so just because it's the first digit in the number doesn't make it automatically greater or less. *-sorry for such long paragraph*
Answer:
= 3b/4
Step-by-step explanation:
= b . 4/12 + b . 3/12 + b . 2/12
Apply the fraction rule: a/c + b/c = a + b/c
= b . 4 + b . 3 + b . 2/12
= 4b + 3b + 2b/12
Add similar elements: 4b + 3b + 2b = 9b
= 9b/12
Cancel 9b/12: 3b/4
= 3b/4
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.
