You would add the like terms by changing them over the equals sign
6r+18=-26+6r
subtract 6r from both sides
18=-26
which is false
No Solution
Answer:
The maximum number of rectangles that Mirela can cut is 5
Step-by-step explanation:
First, you must ensure that all the measurements are the same units.
The rule of three or is a way of solving problems of proportionality between three known values and an unknown value, establishing a relationship of proportionality between all of them.
If the relationship between the magnitudes is direct, that is, when one magnitude increases, so does the other (or when one magnitude decreases, so does the other) , the direct rule of three must be applied. To solve a direct rule of three, the following formula must be followed:
a ⇒ b
c ⇒ x
where a, b and c are known values and x the value to calculate. So:
The direct rule of three is the rule applied in this case where there is a change of units.
To perform this conversion of units, you must first know that 1 m² = 10,000 cm². So, if 10,000 cm² is 1 m², how many cm² equals 0.35 m²?
cm²= 3500
Now, to calculate the maximum number of rectangles that Mirela can cut you divide the total area of the paper by the area of each rectangle:
3500 cm² ÷ 700 cm²= 5
<u><em>The maximum number of rectangles that Mirela can cut is 5</em></u>
Distinguishing potential perplexing factors is a mix of good hypothesis, watchful investigation, and intensive investigator work. Hypothesis discloses to us where to search for frustrating factors. The better a marvel is comprehended, the more itemized and accommodating hypotheses will be. The hypotheses can help point us in the perfect place, yet we should be orderly in posting the numerous potential puzzling factors in the event that we need to have any possibility of controlling them. The criminologist work includes searching for confirm in the examination writing about every potential puzzling variable and its relationship to your reliant variable. This proof will let us know whether the hypothetically critical perplexing variable is probably going to be of handy criticalness in our examination contemplate. We can show this point with a case. Assume we are keen on exploring the social connections of independent and outgoing secondary school rookie. Presently these are prior gatherings, where members are allocated to the gatherings based on identity attributes. We ought to dependably expect that prior gatherings will contrast, not just on the variable that characterized the gathering, yet in addition on different factors that may bewilder our outcomes. For instance, we may expect that contemplative and outgoing secondary school understudies may vary on (1) the quantity of companions they have, (2) the way they identify with their companions, (3) their exercises, (4) the conduct of their folks toward them and their companions, (5) the kind of low maintenance work they may get, (6) the manner by which they examine, (7) their level of confidence, and (8) how different understudies and instructors react to them. These are unsurprising, in light of the fact that we would expect that the introspection/extroversion measurement should impact them. We may likewise expect different contrasts, for example, (1) the way they look and (2) even slight contrasts in age. These we would foresee, in light of the fact that they may have added to the contemplation/extroversion measurement. For instance, somebody who is conceived more appealing may well probably be outgoing, while somebody with an equivalent propensity toward extroversion who is less alluring may have turned out to be more independent since he or she was less acknowledged by companions and others. How could something as little as a couple of months contrast in age influence contemplation? At secondary school age, most likely practically nothing, yet a couple of months distinction in age could have a major effect at 4 or 5, when kids first begin going to class or preschool. Maybe the kids who were a couple of months more youthful than their companions at that point were overpowered by the more established youngsters and the requests of school and began to pull back, winding up more withdrawn. Distinguishing all the potential perplexing factors can be a great test and a considerable measure of fun. When we have recognized potential bewildering factors, since they are hypothetically identified with our autonomous variable and, hence, may contrast in our gatherings, we should then decide if they are identified with the reliant variable. This is the place the investigator work comes in. We should look through the exploration writing to see whether the potential perplexing factors are connected with the ward variable(s) in our investigation. Every so often we will discover an examination whose main role is to take a gander at such connections, however significantly more frequently we will discover investigations of related marvels that happened to quantify these potential puzzling factors and happened to figure the relationship of them with our needy variable or with another variable fundamentally the same as our needy variable. [We will speak without further ado about how these things simply "happen" to be a piece of such studies.] If the factors are uncorrelated with our reliant variable, they don't influence the needy variable and in this manner can't puzzle our outcomes. Basically, we have discounted them. On the off chance that they are corresponded, they may frustrate our outcomes, yet ONLY if our gatherings really vary on them. The examination writing can regularly let us know whether our hypothetical connection between our free factor and the potential jumbling variable really exists practically speaking. In the event that it doesn't, at that point we have again precluded this potential jumbling, in light of the fact that our gatherings are probably not going to vary on this potential bewildering variable. In the event that the potential frustrating variable and the free factor are really related, we need to find a way to discount jumbling.
Unfortunately sucrose isn't classified as any of the above because it is not alive. Sucrose can however be classified as a disaccharide because it contains two monosaccharides (glucose and fructose). If you want to be more broad you can classify it as a carbohydrate.
