Answer:
+12
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
<h2><u><em>
342 m</em></u></h2>
Step-by-step explanation:
Calculate 50% of 684 m.
Give your answer in metres (m).
50% = 1/2
so
684 : 2 = 342 m
I took out the greatest common factor, which is y^2 and factored from there
You’ll end up with y^2(y+2)(y+8)
Here’s my work :)
Answer:
1) B. The height appear to be reported because there are disproportionately more 0s and 5s.
2) A. They are likely not very accurate because they appear to be reported.
Step-by-step explanation:
The distribution table is shown below:
Last Digit Frequency
0 9
1 1
2 1
3 3
4 1
5 11
6 1
7 0
8 3
9 1
1. Based on the distribution table, we see a very disproportionate distribution. There is a high frequency of 0's and 5's. This lays credence to the heights being reported rather than measured. As such, option B is the correct answer
<u>B. The height appear to be reported because there are disproportionately more 0s and 5s</u>.
2. Since the heights were reported and not measured, they are most certainly not accurate. The conclusion is that the result is not accurate. As such, option A is the correct answer
<u>A. They are likely not very accurate because they appear to be reported</u>.
Answer:
-1.375
Step-by-step explanation:
