All categories

3 years ago

What reason is incorrect?

Mathematics

1 answer:

Alika [10]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

A) addition

Step-by-step explanation:

4x + 5x + 12 = -6 (given) this is the given info

9x + 12 = -6 (simplify) to simplify, combine like terms, 4x + 5x = 9x

9x = -18 (subtraction) you are subtracting 12 from both sides to cancel out 12

x = -2 (addition) you are not adding, you are dividing by 9 to get x alone

you are not adding

You might be interested in

WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!!!

givi [52]

Answer:

y = 3x + 1

Step-by-step explanation:

Since we know the Graph is Parallel to y = 3x + 11, we know that the "mx" portion of the equation is 3x since only the "b" would be different.

Then we just substitute in the point and to find b.

4 = 3(1) + b

b = 1

y = 3x + 1 is the answer

4 0

3 years ago

4a + 6b= 10 2a - 4b =12 what does 12a=

mixer [17]

4a + 6b = 10
2a - 4b = 12...multiply by -2
----------------
4a + 6b = 10
-4a + 8b = - 24 (result of multiplying by -2)
------------------add
14b = - 14
b = -14/14
b = -1

2a - 4b = 12
2a - 4(-1) = 12
2a + 4 = 12
2a = 12 - 4
2a = 8
a = 8/2
a = 4

so 12a = 12(4) = 48 <==

3 0

4 years ago

Tim Jones bought 100 shares of a mutual fund ABC at $5.25 with no load. And 100 shares of DEF at $6 which had a load of $275.

ipn [44]

Question Completion:

Evaluate the two investments, assuming shares of ABC were sold at $10.00 each, while those of DEF were sold at $15 each. Which investments yielded the higher return?

Answer:

Tim Jones

Investment in DEF yielded the higher return of $1,225 (net proceeds) than ABC's return of $1,000.

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Data and Calculations:

Investments in ABC and DEF:

ABC DEF

Investment (shares) 100 100

Unit price of shares $5.25 $6.00

Total investments $525 $600

Selling price per share $10 $15

Sales proceeds $1,000 $1,500

Investment commission ($0) ($275)

Net proceeds from sale $1,000 $1,225

b) The above calculations show clearly that the investment in DEF with a load of $275 yielded the higher returns than investment in ABC with no load. This result suggests that the investment load may not be the only factor for rejecting an investment, but its net proceeds.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Last year, 50% of MNM, Inc. employees were female. It is believed that there has been a reduction in the percentage of females i

anygoal [31]

Answer:

We conclude that there has been a decrease in the percentage of females in the company from last year.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that Last year, 50% of MNM, Inc. employees were female. It is believed that there has been a reduction in the percentage of females in the company.

This year, in a random sample of 400 employees, 180 were female.

Let p = percentage of females in the company this year.

So, Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : p $\geq$ 50% {means that there has not been a decrease in the percentage of females in the company from last year}

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_A$ : p < 50% {means that there has been a decrease in the percentage of females in the company from last year}

The test statistics that will be used here is One-sample z proportion statistics;

T.S. = $\frac{\hat p-p}{{\sqrt{\frac{\hat p(1-\hat p)}{n} } } } }$ ~ N(0,1)

where, $\hat p$ = proportion of female in a sample of 400 employees = $\frac{180}{400}$ = 0.45

n = sample of employees = 400

So, test statistics = $\frac{0.45-0.50}{{\sqrt{\frac{0.45(1-0.45)}{400} } } } }$

= -2.0101

The value of the test statistics is -2.0101.

Now at 5% significance level, the z table gives critical value of -1.6449 for left-tailed test. Since our test statistics is less than the critical value of z as -2.0101 < -1.6449, so we have sufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will fall in the rejection region due to which we reject our null hypothesis.

Therefore, we conclude that there has been a decrease in the percentage of females in the company from last year.

4 0

3 years ago

(a) Explain what is wrong with the following ‘proof’:Statement:IfRis symmetric and transitive, thenRis reflexive."Proof":Suppose

barxatty [35]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Recall that, in this case, the subset of X for which R is defined is called the domain of R. The mistake occurs when we assume that the domain R is the whole set X, but it could happen that R is not defined for some elements of X.

Recall the following example:

X = {2,4,6}.

We can define R as follows {(2,2), (4,4), (2,4), (4,2)}. We can easily check that this is a transitive and symmetric relation, but since we don't have the element (6,6) it fails to be reflexive.

8 0

3 years ago