A common misconception in statistics is confusing correlation with causation. If two events are correlated, it merely means that they share the same behaviour over time, but it doesn't imply in any way that those event are related by a common cause, or even worse, that one implies the other.
You can find several (even humorous) counter examples online. For example, if you plot the number of reported pirates assault against the global temperature in the last years, you'll se that temperature is rising (unfortunately...) while pirates are almost disappearing.
One could observe this strong negative correlation and claim that hotter climate has solved the pirate issue. Of course this is a joke, but it explains why you shouldn't confuse correlation with causation.
I believe that, if there are three brothers and each invested the same exact money to make a total of $33.00, each brother would have invested $11.
Jonathan's was different, as he invested 2/5. 11 divided by 2 is 5.5, in which 5.5*11 would equal 27.50.
The rest was simply their denominator times $11.
Jared had $33 dollars before the investment, and Justin has $44.
Answer:
Whats the question
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
0
Step-by-step explanation:
any log with a base of one and it becomes logv5 (1) after logv5(logV3 (3) because log3(3) equal one so then logv5 (1) is 0
