Answer:
C.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
1 Use this rule: a-b=-(b-a)a−b=−(b−a).
-(16-2)
−(16−2)
2 Use the algorithm method.
1 6
- 2
1 4
3 After simplification, we have:
-(16-2)=-14
−(16−2)=−14
4 Therefore, 2-16=-142−16=−14.
-14
−14
for the second one
1 Collect like terms.
7x+(2+12)
7x+(2+12)
2 Simplify.
7x+14
7x+14
Answer:
0 or -5/768
Step-by-step explanation:
192x * 4 is 768x
Now you have 768x=-5
If you divide both sides by 768 you get -5/768
In decimal form that is -0.006510416
If you round the decimal to the nearest tenth you get 0
I hope this helps!
Please give brainliest if it did help
Answer:
The inspector's claim has strong statistical evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
To answer this we have to perform a hypothesis test.
The inspector claimed that the actual proportion of code violations is greater than 0.07, so the null and alternative hypothesis are:

We assume a significance level of 0.05.
The sample size is 200 and the proportion of the sample is:

The standard deviation is

The z-value can be calculated as

The P-value for this z-value is P=0.00914.
This P-value is smaller than the significance level, so the effect is significant and the null hypothesis is rejected.
The inspector's claim has strong statistical evidence.