Answer: First of all, we will add the options.
A. Yes, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
B. Yes, because the regression equation is based on a random sample.
C. Yes, because the association between length and weight is positive.
D. No, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
E. No, because there may not be any 3-inch fish of this species in the pond.
The correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation: It would not be appropriate to use the model to predict the weight of species that is 3 inches long because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
As we can see from the question, the model only accounts for species that are within the range of 0.75 to 1.35 inches in length, and species smaller or larger than that length have not been taken into consideration. Therefore the model can not be used to predict the weights of fishes not with the range accounted for.
Answer:
54.5454%
Step-by-step explanation:
6/11=0.545454545454 and that as a percentage is 54.5454%
Answer:
The distance of the playground is 540m
Step-by-step explanation:
Here, we are interested in calculating the length of the playground given the information in the question.
Where to attack the question from is the segment that states that he took a break after 480m and also had 2 breaks. Thus, the distance traveled would be 480 * 2 = 960 m
Now, to find the length of the track, we add the distance covered plus the distance uncovered. Mathematically that would be 960m + 120m = 1,080m
In the last part of the question, we are told that the track is twice as long as the playground. This means that the length of the playground or the distance of the playground is 1080/2 = 540 m
A year is $200 so if you add it will be $16,000 after 8 years
21.30•4=85.20
85.20+8=93.20
Answer=Dara has $93.20
