Answer:
a) 160°
b) 18 sides
Step-by-step explanation:
Interior angle = 180 - exterior
= 180 - 20 = 160°
Each angle of a regular polygon:
[(n-2)×180]/n = 160
180n - 360 = 160n
20n = 360
n = 18
Alternate approach for no. of sides:
360/n = each exterior angle
360/n = 20
n = 360/20 = 18
The answer is $1.37
and if this is under it-
How many shares of stock does Julie Norris hold if her share of the dividend is $6.85?
The answer is 5
Hope I was helpful
Answer:
<em>Equation; y = 1 3 / 7x - 5 / 7</em>
Step-by-step explanation:
First consider the slope of this equation we must derive;
Slope Formula = Rise / Run,
y2 - y1 / x2 - x1 ⇒
5 - ( - 5 ) / 4 - ( - 3 ) ⇒
10 / 7 ⇒ Slope : 1 3 / 7
So far we can formulate an equation as such;
y = 1 3 / 7 * x + b, <em>where b ⇒ y - intercept</em>
Given one of the points, substitute into this equation solving for b;
5 = 1 3 / 7 * ( 4 ) + b,
5 = 40 / 7 + b,
b = - 5 / 7
From this we can derive one point - slope from equation to be :
<em>Equation; y = 1 3 / 7x - 5 / 7</em>
"T<u>he function is decreasing":</u>
This means the slope of the function will be negative at the given point. Anywhere the line is going down, from left to right, is decreasing. This eliminates choices A and C.
<u>"The function is concave down":</u>
This means the curve of the function will be open down (think of an upside down u). This eliminates choice E.
<u>"f(x)>0":</u>
This is anywhere the curve is above the x axis. This eliminates choice D.
The answer is Choice B) x=2.
Hope this helps!!
Its an indirect proof, so 3 steps :-
1) you start with the opposite of wat u need to prove
2) arrive at a contradiction
3) concludeReport · 29/6/2015261
since you wanto prove 'diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each other', you start wid the opposite of above statement, like below :- step1 : Since we want to prove 'diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each other', lets start by assuming the opposite, that the diagonals of parallelogram dont bisect each other.Report · 29/6/2015261
Since, we assumed that the diagonals dont bisect each other,
OC≠OA
OD≠OBReport · 29/6/2015261
Since, OC≠OA, △OAD is not congruent to △OCBReport · 29/6/2015261
∠AOD≅∠BOC as they are vertical angles,
∠OAD≅∠OCB they are alternate interior angles
AD≅BC, by definition of parallelogram
so, by AAS, △OAD is congruent to △OCBReport · 29/6/2015261
But, thats a contradiction as we have previously established that those triangles are congruentReport · 29/6/2015261
step3 :
since we arrived at a contradiction, our assumption is wrong. so, the opposite of our assumption must be correct. so diagonals of parallelogram bisect each other.
