The science club has raised $154. 24 to buy food for a polar bear cub at the zoo. It costs $53.55 to feed the cub each week. How
1 answer:
Answer:
$59.96
Step-by-step explanation:
Given:
The science club has raised $154. 24 to buy food for a polar bear cub at the zoo.
It costs $53.55 to feed the cub each week.
Question asked:
How much more money does the club need to raise to feed the cub for one month (four weeks)?
Solution:
Cost of feed for the cub for 1 week = $53.55
Cost of feed for the cub for 4 weeks = $53.55 4 = $214.20
Money raised by the science club = $154. 24
More money needed by science club = Cost of feed for 4 weeks - Money raised by the science club
More money needed by science club = $214.20 - $154. 24
= $59.96
Thus, the science club will be needed $59.96 more money for one month (four weeks) feed.
You might be interested in
Answer:
The correct option is;
Mike's measurement are more precise and more accurate
Step-by-step explanation:
The given information are;
The mass of the measured bottle = 16-ounce
The record of the measurements made by Mike are;
16.4 oz
15.2 oz
15.8 oz
The record of the measurements made by Teegan are;
16.34 oz
16.59 oz
15.13 oz
From the two measurements, we have;
The precision of a measurement depends on how close the values of the measurement are to one another, therefore, we have;
For Mike, the precision is given as follows
16.4 - 15.2 = 1.2
16.4 - 15.8 = 0.6
15.8 - 15.2 = 0.6
Total difference = 1.2 + 0.6 + 0.6 = 2.4
For Teegan , the precision is given as follows
16.59 - 16.34 = 0.25
16.59 - 15.13 = 1.46
16.34 - 15.13 = 1.21
Total difference = 0.25 + 1.46 + 1.21 = 2.92
Therefore, Mike's measurements are more precise than Teegan's measurements
The accuracy of the measurement is the amount of closeness the measurements are to a given value
In the question, the given value is 16-ounces of the volume of the bottle
Therefore, by the mean absolute deviation from the 16-ounce of the bottle, we have;
For Mike;
For Teegan, we have;
Therefore, Mike's measurement is more accurate than Teegan's measurement.
Which gives;
Mike's measurement are more precise and more accurate.
Answer:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
Comparing the p value with the significance level assumed we see that
so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to to reject the null hypothesis, and we can say that the proportions analyzed are significantly different at 5% of significance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Data given and notation
represent the number of people indicating that their financial security was more than fair in 2012
represent the number of people indicating that their financial security was more than fair in 2010
sample 1 selected
sample 2 selected
represent the proportion estimated of people indicating that their financial security was more than fair in 2012
represent the proportion estimated of people indicating that their financial security was more than fair in 2010
represent the pooled estimate of p
z would represent the statistic (variable of interest)
represent the value for the test (variable of interest)
significance level given
Part a: Concepts and formulas to use
We need to conduct a hypothesis in order to check if is there is a difference between the two proportions, the system of hypothesis would be:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
Hypothesis testing
We need to apply a z test to compare proportions, and the statistic is given by:
(1)
Where
z-test: Is used to compare group means. Is one of the most common tests and is used to determine whether the means of two groups are equal to each other.
Calculate the statistic
Replacing in formula (1) the values obtained we got this:
Statistical decision
Since is a two sided test the p value would be:
Comparing the p value with the significance level assumed we see that
so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to to reject the null hypothesis, and we can say that the proportions analyzed are significantly different at 5% of significance.