First, lets determine the regular price of his purchase :
16.99 (3) + 34.99 (3) + 52.99 (2) + 5.99 (5) = 50.97 + 104.97 + 105.98 + 29.95 = 291.87
Therefore, the regular price of his purchase is $291.87 before sales tax.
If he receives 25% off of his total purchase, then the price is now :
291.87 * .75 = $218.90
We multiply by 75% because we are only paying 75% of the total purchase price since we received a 25% discount.
The total savings is
291.87 - 218.90 = $72.97
If sales tax is 10%, the total purchase price after sales tax is :
218.90 * 1.10 = $240.79
The sales tax is $21.89 since
240.79 -218.90 = 21.89
If he pays with 3 $100 bills, we should receive :
300 - 240.79 = $59.21
in change.
Answer:
g(x) = x² - 4 is already in form of a variable, I.e., x
g(4x) takes another variable, I.e., 4x
Same as before, 4x takes over x:
=> g(4x) = (4x)² - 4
- <em>(</em><em>ax</em><em>)</em><em>²</em><em> </em><em>=</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em>²</em><em>x</em><em>²</em><em>,</em><em> </em><em>where</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>some</em><em> </em><em>arbitrary</em><em> </em><em>constant</em><em>.</em><em> </em>
<h3><u>Answer</u><u>:</u> </h3>
=> g(4x) = 16x² - 4
OR
=> g(4x) = 4{4x² - 1}
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
They can line up 20 different ways
Answer: I believe its Option 2
Step-by-step explanation: Sory if im wrong
