Answer:
Response 1
Step-by-step explanation:
Response 1 is the only wording that is self-consistent. Response 1 is the appropriate response.
___
Response 2 argues about angles, then concludes sides are congruent. This makes no sense.
Response 3 identifies congruent segments, but they are not opposite sides. The conclusion is unsupported.
Answer:
x=4
x=-5
Step-by-step explanation:
in order for this to be equal to 0, 1 or both of the factors has to be 0, because anything multiplied by 0 is 0.
123 * 29382 * 8139* 0 = 0
x-4 = 0
x = 4
x+5 = 0
x=-5
For the answer to this questions,<span>a. P (z ≤ z0) = 0.0401=P(z ≥ z0) = 1-0.0401 = 0.9599 = P(z ≤ -z0) = 0.9599
From tables z0 = -1.75
b. P (-z0 ≤ z ≤ z0) = .95 = P (z ≤ z0)- P (z ≤ -z0) = P (z ≤ z0)- P (z ≥ z0) =
P (z ≤ z0)-(1- P (z ≤ z0))
P (z ≤ z0) = (0.95+1)/2=0.975
From tables z0 = 1.96
c. P (-z0 ≤ z ≤ z0) = 0.90
the procedure is the same that exercise b P (z ≤ z0) = (0.9+1)/2=0.95
From tables the nearest value is z0 = 1.64
</span>d. P (-z0 ≤ z ≤ 0) = 0.2967= P (z ≤ 0) - P (z ≤ -z0) = P (z ≤ 0) - P (z ≥ z0) =
<span>P (z ≤ 0) - (1- P (z ≤ z0)) </span>
<span>P (z ≤ z0) = 0.2967 + 1 - P (z ≤ 0)= 0.2967 + 1 - 0.5 = 0.7967 </span>
<span>From tables z0 = 0.83
</span><span>
I hope my answer helped you
</span>
Sure. From those choices, the only one that makes sense is that he
didn't perform enough trials. Technically, you can't expect the experimental
probability to match the theoretical probability until you've rolled it an infinite
number of times.
I have a hunch that even for only 60 trials, such a great discrepancy between
theory and experiment is beginning to suggest that the cubie is loaded. But
you really can't say. You just have to keep trying and watch how the numbers
add up.