yes sure, i learned this before so
1. a. make a proportion here, of percentage. 
if you cross multiply and divide you get 90%.
1. b. obviously the empty seats would be 10%.
2. a. proportion again, 
cross multiply then divide you ge 15%
3. 30% in decimal form is 0.3. multiply it then to the total amount, so 0.3 x 15 = 4.5
The second answer that uses = is not correct, because the pentagons are similar not congruent.
The third answer is not correct, because that sign means estimated, not similar.
I've never seen the fourth sign, so by process of elimination I believe the answer is the first one.
<span>ABCDE~QRSTU</span>
Answer:
112
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
-3(b - 7)
Distributive property
-3*b = -3b
-3*7 = -21
-3b + 21
Answer: -3b + 21
