Answer:
34.47
Step-by-step explanation:
multiply $11.49 by 3
<u>Answer</u>:
equation: y = 24x
Step-by-step explanation:
if y and x is proportional,
y = kx
72 = k * 3
k = 24
→ Here the constant if 24
so the equation that relates x and y :
y = 24x
Answer:
There are 420 windows.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the ground floor is part of the 20 =>
20.20=400
There are 400 windows.
If the ground floor is not part of the 20=>
20.20+20=420
There are 420 windows.
First calculate the Area of MOP by using congruent altitudes.
(Area MOP)/(Area AOM) = PO/OA = (Area BOP)/(Area AOB)
Area MOP = (Area AOM)*(Area BOP)/(Area AOB) = (45)*(15/75) = 9.
Now, let Area CMP = x. And use two sets of triangles with congruent altitudes.
(Area CMP)/(Area BMP) = x/(9+15) = x/24 = (CP)/(BP).
(Area CAP)/(Area BAP) = (x+54)/90 = (CP)/(BP)
So,
(Area CMP)/(Area BMP) = (Area CAP)/(Area BAP)
or
x/24 = (x+54)/90
90x = 24 (x+54) = 24x + 1296
66x = 1296
x = 19 
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.
