When estimating, compatible numbers are numbers that are close in value to the actual numbers, and which make it easy to do mental arithmetic.
Answer:
a) 90 stamps
b) 108 stamps
c) 333 stamps
Step-by-step explanation:
Whenever you have ratios, just treat them like you would a fraction! For example, a ratio of 1:2 can also look like 1/2!
In this context, you have a ratio of 1:1.5 that represents the ratio of Canadian stamps to stamps from the rest of the world. You can set up two fractions and set them equal to each other in order to solve for the unknown number of Canadian stamps. 1/1.5 is representative of Canada/rest of world. So is x/135, because you are solving for the actual number of Canadian stamps and you already know how many stamps you have from the rest of the world. Set 1/1.5 equal to x/135, and solve for x by cross multiplying. You'll end up with 90.
Solve using the same method for the US! This will look like 1.2/1.5 = x/135. Solve for x, and get 108!
Now, simply add all your stamps together: 90 + 108 + 135. This gets you a total of 333 stamps!
Let's solve this inequality!
What can we do to solve this inequality? Well, first of all, we can add -7 and 35:
Now, move 20 to the right, using the opposite operation:
Subtract:
Divide both sides by -1 to isolate x:
(Answer)
_____________
<em>Additional comment</em>
When we divide both sides of an inequality by a negative number, we flip the inequality sign.
____________
I hope you find it helpful.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
I think it is A
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Theoretical probability:
1 ... (16 and 2/3) %
2 ... (16 and 2/3) %
3 ... (16 and 2/3) %
4 ... (16 and 2/3) %
5 ... (16 and 2/3) %
6 ... (16 and 2/3) %
Experimental results:
1 ... 18
2 ... 16
3 ... 16
4 ... 17
5 ... 16
6 ... 17
The total number of rolls in the experiment was
(18 + 16 + 16 + 17 + 16 + 17) = 100
so the expected frequency for each outcome was 16-2/3 times,
and the SIMULATION probabilities were
1 ... 18%
2 ... 16%
3 ... 16%
4 ... 17%
5 ... 16%
6 ... 17%
To me, this looks fantastically close. The cube
could hardly be more fair than it actually is.
