4. Yes, line L is parallel to M because they do not intersect, the angles do not matter.
5.
A. 2 and 3 would be Alt. Int. Angles.
B. 2 and 4 are congruent angles.
Answer:
<em>It will take 26.34 minutes for the population to reach 5 times its initial value</em>
Step-by-step explanation:
<u>Exponential Growing</u>
The population of bacteria grows at a rate expressed by the equation:
Where t is in minutes.
We need to know when the population will reach 5 times its initial value. The initial value can be determined by setting t=0:
Now we find the time when the population is 5*256=1,280. The equation to solve is:
Dividing by 256:
Taking natural logarithms:
Applying the logarithm properties:
Solving for t:
It will take 26.34 minutes for the population to reach 5 times its initial value
Answer: The expression 13÷5 is a fraction. Here the only option that makes sense as per this expression is:
B. Each of 5 cupcakes used 13 pound of sugar. What is the total amount of sugar used?
Therefore the option B is correct
Also please note:
A fraction is a number that represents a part of a whole. It consists of a numerator and a denominator. The numerator represents the number of equal parts of a whole, while the denominator is the total number of parts that make up said whole.
Answer:
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
Step-by-step explanation: using the syllogism rules.
Premises 1 (P1) = Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity,
Premises 2 (P2) = so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries
Conclusion (C) = because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
From the argument:
P1 uses "some", that means it's not "all" foreign emissaries person that does not have diplomatic immunity. This means that some other foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity
P2 uses "some", that means it's affirms to that part of P1 which states that some foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity.
The conclusion is valid because the part of P2 which states that some foreign emissaries are vulnerable to arrest, which affirms with P1 which states that Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity. That means no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. This conclusion literally means that if you don't have diplomatic immunity, you are vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
Therefore;
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
