Answer:
C
Step-by-step explanation:
Solution:
1. Rome
Minimum=0
Maximum=16
Median ,
Mean = 8
Standard Deviation(σ)=5.4
As, difference between , Maximum -Mean =Mean - Minimum=8
So, Mean will Worthy description to find the center of Data set, given about Rome.
2. New York
Minimum=1
Maximum=20
Median ,
Mean = 7.25
Standard Deviation(σ)=6.1
As, for New york , Mean is not the mid value, that is difference between Mean and Minimum is not same as Maximum and Mean.
As, you can see , the three Quartiles , 
are very close to each other, it means , other data values are quite apart from each other. So, Mean will not appropriately describe the given data.So, in this case Median will suitable to find the center.
Option (B): The Rome data center is best described by the mean. The New York data center is best described by the median.
The answer to x would be 3
Answer:
18
Step-by-step explanation:
If TP = 7, then TO can be 7 or 11 to make the triangle isosceles.
If TP = 5, then TO can 5 or 11
Stop right there, though! Your logic is correct, but TO cannot be 5! Why? Triangles have certain properties that they must adhere to for a triangle to exist. One such theorem is called the triangle inequality theorem. It states that the sum of the lengths of two different sides is greater than the remaining third side.
The other side length possibilities adhere to this restriction, thankfully. Now, add 7 and 11. 7+11=18
Answers:
<h2>17. B</h2><h2>18. B</h2>
Step-by-step explanation:
17. We need to understand what an indirect proof is. In an indirect proof, you prove a statement by showing that the negation of the statement is false.
The "then" part of the conditional is the "to prove" statement.
In an indirect proof, we assume the opposite of what we want to prove, this is also called proof by contradiction.
So if we need to prove angle A is not an obtuse angle, we will assume it is and then use the proof format to show that angle A cannot be obtuse.
<h2>The answer is B: Assume angle A is an obtuse angle</h2>
18. This question is asking us to use an indirect proof again. The "then" part of the statement is "KL > JK" and is the "to prove" statement.
We need the opposite of this, which would be assuming that KL <u><</u> JK.
<h2>The answer is B: Assume that KL <u><</u> JK</h2><h2>I'm always happy to help :)</h2>
