I'd like to see some of your own efforts here. This is the third time you've posted two "factor completelyl" problems, without sharing what you've already done.
<span>3v^2 - 8v - 16 cannot be reduced. Thus, your best choice to find roots is to apply the quadratic formula:
8 plus or minus sqrt( 64-4(3)(-16) )
v = ---------------------------------------------------
2(3)
8 plus or minus sqrt( 64 + 192 )
= ---------------------------------------------
6
8 plus or minus sqrt(256)
= -------------------------------------
6
= 8 + 16, all divided by 6, or 8 - 16, all divided by 6
= 4 or -8/6, or 4 or -4/3.
The factors are (v-4) and (v + 4/3).</span>
First, find the value of the expression within the parentheses, which is 8x. Since x=1/4, 8x=8/4 or 2. Next, multiply this value by -3. -3*2=-6
9x + 3 = 7x +19
2x + 3 = 19
2x = 16
x = 8
So, x (8) is the number of chairs in each row with these setups.
Plug 8 into one of the equations and you will find how many chairs total there are.
9(8) + 3 = 75
There are 75 chairs total
Answer:
0.0735,0.0179,0.7026
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that a simple random sample of size nequals 49 is obtained from a population with mu equals 78 and sigma equals 28.
Sample size = 49
Population mean = 78
Population std deviation = 28
Std error of sample mean = 
a) 
: N(78, 4)
b) 
(by converting to Z and finding value from Z table)
c) P (x overbar less than or equals 69.6 )
=
d) P (75.8 less than x overbar less than 88 )
=
Answer:
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
Step-by-step explanation: using the syllogism rules.
Premises 1 (P1) = Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity,
Premises 2 (P2) = so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries
Conclusion (C) = because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
From the argument:
P1 uses "some", that means it's not "all" foreign emissaries person that does not have diplomatic immunity. This means that some other foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity
P2 uses "some", that means it's affirms to that part of P1 which states that some foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity.
The conclusion is valid because the part of P2 which states that some foreign emissaries are vulnerable to arrest, which affirms with P1 which states that Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity. That means no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. This conclusion literally means that if you don't have diplomatic immunity, you are vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
Therefore;
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
