If Jared eats 3/4 of a sandwich three times this week, how many sandwiches will he have eaten altogether?

What method do i use to solve this?

skelet666 [1.2K]

Answer: x=20
all angles in the triangle are 180 degree, so:
2x+3x+4x=180
9x=180
divide both sides by 9
x= 20

8 0

3 years ago

Can someone tell me how much is 0,5-⁶?

serg [7]

Answer:

add this and (5 × 5 × 5) × (5 × 5 × 5 × 5 × 5

Step-by-step explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

A 100 inch strip of sheet metal starting out 16 inches wide is to be made into a small open trough (open top and ends) by turnin

daser333 [38]

Answer:

4 inches should be turned up on both sides.

Step-by-step explanation:

In order to find this, create a situation in which we give the amount turned up on each side as x. Then give the amount that isn't turned up as 16 - 2x (since 2x is the amount turned up). Now we can find the area by multiplying the 3 measurements.

100 * x * (16 - 2x) = MAX

100 * (16x - 2x^2) = MAX

-200x^2 + 1600x = MAX

Now that we have a quadratic function, we can find the maximum value of x by using the vertex formula for x values (-b/2a).

x = -b/2a

x = -1600/2(-200)

x = -1600/-400

x = 4

8 0

3 years ago

A little stuck on this problem help

KatRina [158]

Answer:

∠N = 31

Step-by-step explanation:

MN = MP

∠N = ∠P = x+3

∠M + ∠N + ∠P = 180

4x+6 + x+3 + x+3 = 6x + 12 = 180

x = 28

∠N = 28 + 3 = 31

5 0

3 years ago

2. The National Safety Council routinely analyzes the benefit of seat belt use on driver safety. Their data showed that among 28

JulijaS [17]

Answer:

We conclude that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that among 2823 drivers not wearing seat belts, 31 died as a result of injuries, and among 7765 drivers wearing seat belts 16 were killed.

Let $p_1$ = proportion of deaths when drivers were not wearing seat belts.

$p_2$ = proportion of deaths when drivers were wearing seat belts.

So, Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : $p_1=p_2$ {means that there is no difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups}

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_A$ : $p_1\neq p_2$ {means that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups}

The test statistics that would be used here Two-sample z test for proportions;

T.S. = $\frac{(\hat p_1-\hat p_2)-(p_1-p_2)}{\sqrt{\frac{\hat p_1(1-\hat p_1)}{n_1}+\frac{\hat p_2(1-\hat p_2)}{n_2} } }$ ~ N(0,1)

where, $\hat p_1$ = sample proportion of deaths when drivers were not wearing seat belts = $\frac{31}{2823}$ = 0.011

$\hat p_2$ = sample proportion of deaths when drivers were wearing seat belts = $\frac{16}{7765}$ = 0.002

$n_1$ = sample of drivers not wearing seat belts = 2823

$n_2$ = sample of drivers wearing seat belts = 7765

So, the test statistics = $\frac{(0.011-0.002)-(0)}{\sqrt{\frac{0.011(1-0.011)}{2823}+\frac{0.002(1-0.002)}{7765} } }$

= 4.438

The value of z test statistics is 4.438.

Now, at 5% significance level the z table gives critical values of -1.96 and 1.96 for two-tailed test.

Since our test statistic doesn't lie within the range of critical values of z, so we have sufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will fall in the rejection region due to which we reject our null hypothesis.

Therefore, we conclude that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups.

Also, Margin of error (E) = $1.96 \times \sqrt{\frac{\hat p_1(1-\hat p_1)}{n_1}+\frac{\hat p_2(1-\hat p_2)}{n_2} }$

= $1.96 \times \sqrt{\frac{0.011(1-0.011)}{2823}+\frac{0.002(1-0.002)}{7765} }$

= 0.00397

5 0

3 years ago