A) See picture for the table.
To make the table, multiply 47774 by 1.5% to get total that have diabetes and multiply 5855 by 2.5% to get total unemployed that have it, then using subtraction fill in the other squares of the table.
B)
Hypothesis:
H0: No association between employment and diabetes.
H1: Association between the two
Using a graphing calculator or Excel, run a chi-test.
Chi squared equals 31.844 with 1 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
With this information we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is an association between diabetes and employment.
C)
Although there is a statistical significance, there really is no practical significance between an incidence rate of 1.5 or 2.5%
<span><span><span>22x</span>−11 over x to the second power - x - 30.</span></span>
Answer:
B. 
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is not properly presented. See attachment for proper presentation of question
From the attachment, we have that:
Required
Order from greatest to least
First, we need to simplify each of the given expression (in decimals)
Take square root of 3
--- approximated
Take π as 3.14
--- approximated
List out the results, we have:
Order from greatest to least, we have:
Hence, the order of arrangement is:
i.e.
<span>
Let's analyze Hannah's work, step-by-step, to see if she made any mistakes. </span>In Step 1, Hannah wrote
<span> as the sum of two separate derivatives </span>
<span>using the </span><span>sum rule.
</span>
This step is perfectly fine. In Step 2,
was kept as it is, and
was rewritten as
using the constant rule.Indeed, according to the constant rule, the derivative of a constant number is equal to zero.
This step is perfectly fine. In Step 3,
was rewritten as
supposedly using the constant multiple rule.
The problem is that according to the constant multiple rule,
should be rewritten as
and not as
.
<span>
Therefore, Hannah made a mistake in this step.</span>
