I believe it's A. <span>Eva would have been better off selecting the 20-year term policy.
Unde current circumtances, 10-year term policy wouldn't guarantee thesafety of the kids because even after the policy ends, Eva's kids still haven't entered the age where they could find their own income (they would be 12, 13, and 15).
If Eva decided to add another 10 year despite the extra charge, The kids will be covered until they enter the productive age.</span>
The answer is 33
3(-2)^2+4(-2)+5
-6^2+ (-8) + 5
36 + (-8) + 5
28+5
33
Answer: 64 years
Step-by-step explanation:
Let assume the dealer sold the bottle now for $P, then invested that money at 5% interest. The return would be:
R1 = P(1.05)^t,
This means that after t years, the dealer would have the total amount of:
$P×1.05^t.
If the dealer prefer to wait for t years from now to sell the bottle of wine, then he will get the return of:
R2 = $P(1 + 20).
The value of t which will make both returns equal, will be;
R1 = R2.
P×1.05^t = P(1+20)
P will cancel out
1.05^t = 21
Log both sides
Log1.05^t = Log21
tLog1.05 = Log21
t = Log21/Log1.05
t = 64 years
The best time to sell the wine is therefore 64years from now.
No, Lily is not correct. This is because 16+3 does not equal 18. So to find N, you take 18 and subtract 16.
18-16=n
18-16=2
so n=2
16+2=18.
