Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
8 foot path
1st step = 8/2 = 4ft
2nd step = 4/2 = 2ft
3rd step = 2/2 = 1ft
4th step = 1/2 = 1/2ft
So he covered 7 1/2 ft (or 7.5ft)
Answer:
6
Step-by-step explanation:
are=A=πr2
28.26/3.14=9
√9=3
3•2=6
Answer:
we need the image to answer. you tried to paste it in but it didnt work
Answer:
c. 9 det A
Step-by-step explanation:
Given the following data;
Since A is a square matrix of order 2, we know that n = 2
K = 3
For any scalar k;
∣kA∣ = k^{n} ∣A∣
<em>Substituting into the equation;</em>
∣-3A∣ = -3²∣A∣
Simplifying, we have;
∣-3A∣ = 9∣A∣
= 9 detA
<em>Therefore, det (-3A) = 9 detA</em>
