Take measurements of what you want to draw, (e.g. a simple cube that is 100 cm x 100 cm x 100 cm.)
A full scale drawing would require you to draw the cube on a paper 100 cm x 100 cm x 100 cm.
If you want to 'scale', you would then redraw using new measurements. So, a 1/10 scale drawing would mean that you would redraw the cube on paper as 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm.
A 1/20 scale would be 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm. The same concept holds for all scale drawings.
3x + 6 = 48 (alternate angles are equal)
- 6
3x. = 42
÷3
x = 14 degrees
180-48 - 2y + 5y-9 =180
123 + 3y = 180
-123
3y = 57
÷3
y = 19 degrees
Explanation:
To find the last angle on the top straight line, do:
180 - (the 2 given angles).
So, 180 - (3x + 16, which is 48 due to alternate angles being equal). Then, minus the 2y.
(180 - 48 - 2y) & simplify => 132 - 2y
This gives you the equation for the missing angle on our top straight line.
Thus, co-interior angles add to 180. So, we add the new equation (132 - 2y) to 5y - 9.
Simplify
=> 123 + 3y (because - 2+5 =3)
and put it equal to 180. Solve for y
Hope this helps!
Answer:
97.3%
Step-by-step explanation:
Let the three bulbs be A, B and C respectively.
Let P(A) denote the probability that the first bulb will burn out
Let P(B) denote the probability that the second bulb will burn out
Let P(C) denote the probability that the third bulb will burn out
Now, we are told that Each one has a 30% probability of burning out within the month.
Thus;
P(A) = P(B) = P(C) = 30% = 0.3
Now, probability that at the end of the month at least one of the bulbs will be lit will be given as;
P(at least one bulb will be lit) = 1 - (P(A) × P(B) × P(C))
P(at least one bulb will be lit) = 1 - (0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3) = 0.973 = 97.3%
Answer:
c)The proof writer mentally assumed the conclusion. He wrote "suppose n is an arbitrary integer", but was really thinking "suppose n is an arbitrary integer, and suppose that for this n, there exists an integer k that satisfies n < k < n+2." Under those assumptions, it follows indeed that k must be n + 1, which justifies the word "therefore": but of course assuming the conclusion destroyed the validity of the proof.
Step-by-step explanation:
when we claim something as a hypothesis we can only conclude with therefore at the end of the proof. so assuming the conclusion nulify the proof from the beginning
