$450 per week earns you $450 total per week, for $<span>23,400 total
$115 per week earns you that plus 9.5% of $125,000, which is $</span>11,875, plus $5,980 which is $<span>17,855 total
There is a $</span><span>5,545 difference, making the $450 a week a better deal</span>
Complementary angles add up to 90 so
angle + 47 = 90
angle = 90 - 47
angle = 43 so A
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
x= money earned per hour working as a cashier.
y=money earned per hour working delivering newspapers.
We propose the following system of equations:
5x + 4y =77
6x + 3y=78
We solve the system by reduction method:
-6*(5x+4y=77) ⇒ -30x-24y=-462
5*(6x+3y=78)⇒ 30x+15y=390
---------------------------
-9y=-72 ⇒ y=-72 /-9=8
Now, we get the value of "x" replacing the value of "y" by "8" in any part of the equation above.
5x + 4(8)=77
5x+32=77
5x=77-32
5x=45
x=45/5=9
therefore;
money earned per hour working as a cashier= $9/ hour
money earned per hour working delivering newspapers=$8/hour
The partial product of 4.6×3.5 is 16.1
Answer:
For the reasons mentioned in the explanation section, it is indeed a weak generalization:
Step-by-step explanation:
- No, there is not enough data provided on certain subjects' age, socioeconomic status, etc. that may have influenced the investing decision.
- No, the survey isn't random, the study is irregular because each has a fair probability of expressing their true beliefs, here in this query it's written they've been told individuals are given actual medication, which may have contributed to the Hawthorne studies giving incorrect outcomes.
- No, the amount isn't sufficient mostly on the premise of 28 subject areas with be provided oxytocin, and therefore only one test being performed should we not be able to determine the results to implement for certain persons including billions of populace, it would be a hurried generalization.
