Answer:
1104 miles
Step-by-step explanation:
Say he lives in a place in Mexico which is at a distance of <em>a </em>miles from the Mexico-America border point and the reunion is at <em>b </em>miles from the same border point, in America.
So the total distance travelled is ( a + b ) miles
( this is just sum of distance travelled in Mexico + that in America )
Given , a=747 and a+b=1851
that implies:
747 + b = 1851
So, b = 1104 miles.
Therefore he has travelled 1104 miles in America,
Answer:
Just use long subtraction by expanding the decimal places of the whole number. This is done by adding a point, and enough zeros to it to match the number of decimal digits in the other number (digits after the decimal point).
12345678
i.e: 5 - 2.48374827, 2.48374827 has 8 decimal digits, so add 8 zeros after the point.
=
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5.00000000
-
2.48374827
_______________
2.51625173
7 + 3 = <u>1</u>0, 7 + 2 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 8 + 1 + <u>1</u>= <u>1</u>0, 5 + 4 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 2 + 7 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 3 + 6 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 1 + 8 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 5 + 4 + <u>1</u> = <u>1</u>0, 2 + 2 + <u>1</u> = <u>5</u><u> </u><u>:</u><u> </u>5.00000000
This is basically borrowing a group of 10s which are the same as 1s in the next decimal place up.
For each digit except the first to the right, let 10 subtract that number from it and minus 1 since the 1 is carried over.
Answer:
2x-7
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
See explanation
Step-by-step explanation:
Given the function f(x) for which

If you want to plot the corresponding points for the inverse of the function f(x), change
into
:

switch x and y

and then change
into
You get

Now plot these points on the coordinate plane (see attached diagram).
One of the major advantage of the two-condition experiment has to do with interpreting the results of the study. Correct scientific methodology does not often allow an investigator to use previously acquired population data when conducting an experiment. For example, in the illustrative problem involving early speaking in children, we used a population mean value of 13.0 months. How do we really know the mean is 13.0 months? Suppose the figures were collected 3 to 5 years before performing the experiment. How do we know that infants haven’t changed over those years? And what about the conditions under which the population data were collected? Were they the same as in the experiment? Isn’t it possible that the people collecting the population data were not as motivated as the experimenter and, hence, were not as careful in collecting the data? Just how were the data collected? By being on hand at the moment that the child spoke the first word? Quite unlikely. The data probably were collected by asking parents when their children first spoke. How accurate, then, is the population mean?