Answer:
The range is the difference between the biggest and smaller values of a set. The median is the middle value of a set. So we cannot say were the lowest score was found, comparing the median and ranges, because it could be that some repeated value very low or high is biasing the median, we could do it with the mean perhaps. So the proposal is false.
The equation for Louis's purchase is: 
The equation for Kate's purchase is: 
The equation for Biff's purchase is: 
Step-by-step explanation:
First of all we have to define variables for each item involved in the purchase
Let x represent burger
y represent soda
z be the slice of pizza
Then
"Louis bought a burger and soda for $8"
"Kate purchased a slice of pizza and soda for $9"
"Biff purchased a burger, a slice of pizza and a soda for $13.50"
The equation for Louis's purchase is:
The equation for Kate's purchase is:
The equation for Biff's purchase is:
Keywords: Linear Equations, Variables
Learn more about Linear equations at:
#LearnwithBrainly
Answer:
AB is parallel to A'B'.
DO,1/2 (1/2x, 1/2y) =
The distance from A' to the origin is half the distance from A to the origin.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
