Answer: none
Step-by-step explanation:
(A)
(16÷32/10) ×2 + 0.2×(90)
Using bodmas principle ; solve bracket
(16×10/32)×2 + (2/10×90)
10+18 =28
(B)
{(16÷32/10) × (2+2/10)} ×90
Open brackets
{(16×10/32) × (22/10)} ×90
(5×11/5) ×90
11×90 = 990
(C)
16÷{(32/10×2) + (2/10×8)} +82
Open brackets, solve division first, dolled by addition
16÷(32/5 + 8/5) +82
16÷(40/5) +82
16÷8 +82
2+82= 84
(D)
[16÷(32/10 ×2) + 0.2× (90)]
16÷ (32/5) + 2/10 ×90
Solve division
16×5/32 + 18
5/2 + 18
L.c.m of denominator (2&1) =2
(5+36) / 2 = 41/2
=20.5
Answer:
5
Step-by-step explanation:
follow me if I'm right
-1, -5, -60, -123456 In general, those are negative integers.
Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Answer:
Opposite angles in a parrellelogram are
congruent.