All categories

2 years ago

Given f(x) = 3x + 4 and g(x) = 8x + 1 then what is ( f + g )(0))? *****HELP*^^^^^^

1 answer:

3 0

• f(x) = 3x + 4

• g(x) = 8x + 1

Sum both functions above:

(f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x)

(f + g)(x) = (3x + 4) + (8x + 1)

(f + g)(x) = 3x + 8x + 4 + 1

(f + g)(x) = 11x + 5

Therefore,

(f + g)(0) = 11 · 0 + 5

(f + g)(0) = 0 + 5

(f + g)(0) = 5 <——— this is the answer.

I hope this helps! =)

You might be interested in

How do you factor 7+14

mote1985 [20]

You could factor a 7 out of 7 + 14 to get 7(1 + 2).

This would equal the same thing as 7 + 14, which is 21.

7 * 3 = 21.

21 can be factored like so:

1 * 21 = 21

3 * 7 = 21

5 0

3 years ago

The figure below shows a rectangular window

Alexxx [7]

Where is the figureeeee??

5 0

3 years ago

Terry is buying water. He needs 22 liters. A half-liter of water costs $2.11. A 200 -milliliter container of water costs $1.01.

Dvinal [7]

Answer: Terry should buy the half-liter of water that costs $2.11 because buying 200 litres here is cheaper.

Step-by-step explanation:

Terry is buying water and needs 22 liters. A half-liter of water costs $2.11. Using this information, 22 litres will cost:

= 22 ÷ 1/2 × 2.11

= 22 × 2 × 2.11

= $92.84

Also, A 200 -milliliter container of water costs $1.01. Using this information, 22 litres will cost:

= 22 × 1.01 ÷ 200/1000

= 22 × 1.01 × 1000/200

= 22 × 1.01 × 5

= $111.1

Based on this information, Terry should buy the half-liter of water that costs $2.11 because buying 200 litres here is cheaper.

3 0

3 years ago

Which situations illustrate that the sum of opposite numbers is zero?

Mrac [35]

I believe C and E, because in C, he puts in 600 then takes out 600, which equals 0. in E, they get 3000 and then spend the 3000, which also equals 0.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A publisher reports that 344% of their readers own a particular make of car. A marketing executive wants to test the claim that

inysia [295]

Answer:

No, there is not enough evidence at the 0.02 level to support the executive's claim.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that a publisher reports that 34% of their readers own a particular make of car. A random sample of 220 found that 30% of the readers owned a particular make of car.

And, a marketing executive wants to test the claim that the percentage is actually different from the reported percentage, i.e;

Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : p = 0.34 {means that the percentage of readers who own a particular make of car is same as reported 34%}

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_1$ : p $\neq$ 0.34 {means that the percentage of readers who own a particular make of car is different from the reported 34%}

The test statistics we will use here is;

T.S. = $\frac{\hat p -p}{\sqrt{\frac{\hat p(1- \hat p)}{n} } }$ ~ N(0,1)

where, p = actual % of readers who own a particular make of car = 0.34

$\hat p$ = percentage of readers who own a particular make of car in a

sample of 220 = 0.30

n = sample size = 220

So, Test statistics = $\frac{0.30 -0.34}{\sqrt{\frac{0.30(1- 0.30)}{220} } }$

= -1.30

Now, at 0.02 significance level, the z table gives critical value of -2.3263 to 2.3263. Since our test statistics lie in the range of critical values which means it doesn't lie in the rejection region, so we have insufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis.

Therefore, we conclude that the actual percentage of readers who own a particular make of car is same as reported percentage and the executive's claim that it is different is not supported.

3 0

3 years ago