All categories

3 years ago

Sameer worked for 6.2 hours each day for 5 days. He earned $18.75 per hour. How much did Sameer earn in all?

Mathematics

2 answers:

Trava [24]3 years ago

7 0

So 6.2 hours per day for 5 days
6.2 times 5=31 hours total
and 18.75 per hour

31 times 18.75=581.25

he earned $581.25

Sholpan [36]3 years ago

5 0

(# hours per day) * (total days worked)= (total number of hours worked)
(total hours) * ($ amount earned per hour)= (total amount earned)= $581.25

(6.2) * (5)=31
(31) * (18.75)= 581.25

You might be interested in

12. Find the value of x.<br> HELP PLS HELP

xenn [34]

Answer:

x = 16

Step-by-step explanation:

SR = ST ⇒ Two sides are equal. So, ΔSRT is an isosceles triangle.

The angles opposite to equal sides are equal.

⇒ ∠STR = ∠R

∠STR = 4x - 28

Linear pair: If a ray stands on a line, then the adjacent angles are supplementary and they are called linear pair

∠STR + ∠STU = 180° {linear pair}

4x - 28 + 9x = 180

4x + 9x - 28 = 180 {Combine like terms}

13x- 28 = 180

Add 28 to both the sides

13x = 180 + 28

13x = 208

Divide both sides by 13

x = 208/13

$\sf \boxed{x = 16}$

8 0

1 year ago

Read 2 more answers

Algebra 2 help? :))))

tester [92]

Just look at the photos

5 0

3 years ago

A scalene triangle has two sides that are equal in length.

iogann1982 [59]

false that not true they have all unequal sides

8 0

2 years ago

Suppose that the ages of cars driven by employees at a company are normally distributed with a mean of 8 years and a standard de

choli [55]

There follows the formula for "z-score:"

raw score - mean

z = ------------------------------

standard dev

9.1 - 8

Here, the z-score is z = ------------- = 0.344

3.2

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The Salk polio vaccine experiment in 1954 focused on the effectiveness of the vaccine in combating paralytic polio. Because it w

sdas [7]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Hello!

The variables of interest are:

X₁: Number of cases of polio observed in kids that received the placebo vaccine.

n₁= 201299 total children studied

x₁= 110 cases observed

X₂: Number of cases of polio observed in kids that received the experimental vaccine.

n₂= 200745 total children studied

x₂= 33 cases observed

These two variables have a binomial distribution. The parameters of interest, the ones to compare, are the population proportions: p₁ vs p₂

You have to test if the population proportions of children who contracted polio in both groups are different: p₂ ≠ p₁

H₀: p₂ = p₁

H₁: p₂ ≠ p₁

α: 0.05

$Z= \frac{(p'_2-p'_1)-(p_2-p_1)}{\sqrt{p'[\frac{1}{n_1} +\frac{1}{n_2} ]} }$

Sample proportion placebo p'₁= x₁/n₁= 110/201299= 0.0005

Sample proportion vaccine p'₂= x₂/n₂= 33/200745= 0.0002

Pooled sample proportion p'= (x₁+x₂)/(n₁+n₂)= (110+33)/(201299+200745)= 0.0004

$Z_{H_0}= \frac{(0.0002-0.0005)-0}{\sqrt{0.0004[\frac{1}{201299} +\frac{1}{200745} ]} }= -4.76$

This test is two-tailed, using the critical value approach, you have to determine two critical values:

$Z_{\alpha/2}= Z_{0.025}= -1.96$

$Z_{1-\alpha /2}= Z_{0.975}= 1.96$

Then if $Z_{H_0}$ ≤ -1.96 or if $Z_{H_0}$ ≥ 1.96, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

If -1.96 < $Z_{H_0}$ < 1.96, the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis.

⇒ $Z_{H_0}$ = -4.76, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

H₀: p₂ = p₁

H₁: p₂ ≠ p₁

α: 0.01

$Z= \frac{(p'_2-p'_1)-(p_2-p_1)}{\sqrt{p'[\frac{1}{n_1} +\frac{1}{n_2} ]} }$

The value of $Z_{H_0}$ = -4.76 doesn't change, since we are working with the same samples.

The only thing that changes alongside with the level of significance is the rejection region:

$Z_{\alpha /2}= Z_{0.005}= -2.576$

$Z_{1-\alpha /2}= Z_{0.995}= 2.576$

Then if $Z_{H_0}$ ≤ -2.576or if $Z_{H_0}$ ≥ 2.576, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

If -2.576< $Z_{H_0}$ < 2.576, the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis.

⇒ $Z_{H_0}$ = -4.76, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

Remember the level of significance (probability of committing type I error) is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. This means that the smaller this value is, the fewer chances you have of discarding the true null hypothesis. But as you know, you cannot just reduce this value to zero because, the smaller α is, the bigger β (probability of committing type II error) becomes.

Rejecting the null hypothesis using different values of α means that there is a high chance that you reached a correct decision (rejecting a false null hypothesis)

I hope this helps!

8 0

3 years ago