Answer:
1/4
Step-by-step explanation:
625^x = 5
x = 1/4
Answer:
43°
Step-by-step explanation:
(x + 53)° + (x + 74)° + 73° = 180°
(x + 53 + x + 74)° = 180° - 73°
(2x + 127)° = 107°
2x + 127 = 107
2x = 107 - 127
2x = - 20
x = - 20/2
x = - 10
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
First,You have to realize that if you multiply the amount of food by something, you multiply the amount of calories. if some piece of food is 100 calories what happens if you eat 2? you get 2 times that number of calories. Same fi you eat half of one of that kind of food. You get half the amount of calories.
Here he makes 1 1/2 (one and a half) times the amount. Now, if this is confusing you just need to realize that multiplying by this is the same as multiplying by 1+1/2. Say, again, a piece of food is 100 calories. Multiplying it by this would look like the following.
100(1+1/2)
100*1 + 100*1/2
100+50
150
So if you ever have a mixed number like this you could split it up into an addition problem and then distribute hat you're multiplying. Another solution is to multiply by the improper fraction, which here is 3/2, so 100*3/2=150 as well. Let me know if you don't get how to get the improper fraction or how to multiply fractions.
Now, super simple, just multiply the calories by that number.
310(1+1/2) = 310(3/2)
310 + 155 = 930/2
465 = 465
Kinda showed how to multiply by fractions, still if you don't get it let me know.
Answer:
15 houses
Step-by-step explanation:
1/3 * 72 = 24
5/8 * 24 = 15
Answer:
Suggestion 13 is a correction of the Constitution of California ordered during 1978, through the drive interaction. The drive was endorsed by California electors on June 6, 1978. It was maintained as established by the US High Court on account of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1.Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1.
