9514 1404 393
Answer:
2
Step-by-step explanation:
The curve's highest value is -1.
The curve's lowest value is -5.
For a symmetrical wave like this*, the amplitude is half the difference between the highest and lowest values:
1/2(-1 -(-5)) = 2
The amplitude is 2.
_____
* There is no general agreement as to how to compute the amplitude when the wave is asymmetrical. Some authors use the same formula. Some consider the amplitude to be the maximum deviation from average. Some define only a "peak-to-peak" amplitude in those cases. The meaning of "amplitude" in those cases depends on the context in which the question is asked.
Answer: 
Step-by-step explanation:
We need to apply the following identity:
Then, applying this, you know that for 
:
We need to remember that:
and 
Therefore, we need to substitute these values into .
Then, you get:
Answer:
umm idk let me get back to you
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer: First of all, we will add the options.
A. Yes, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
B. Yes, because the regression equation is based on a random sample.
C. Yes, because the association between length and weight is positive.
D. No, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
E. No, because there may not be any 3-inch fish of this species in the pond.
The correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation: It would not be appropriate to use the model to predict the weight of species that is 3 inches long because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
As we can see from the question, the model only accounts for species that are within the range of 0.75 to 1.35 inches in length, and species smaller or larger than that length have not been taken into consideration. Therefore the model can not be used to predict the weights of fishes not with the range accounted for.
The answer would be C because it’s the only fraction that does not equal 0.4
