Answer:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
Step-by-step explanation:
#1
Yes, this is a function.
None of the x-values have more than one possible value for y. None of the x-values are repeated in this table.
#2
No, this is not a function.
For each and every value of x, there can only be one y. The x-value 13 has two possible values of y, 4 and -4. This is represented in the coordinates (13, 4) and (13, -4).
#3
Yes, this is a function.
The graph passes the vertical line test. If you were the pass a vertical line through the graph, it would only be touching the graph once, wherever the vertical line is placed.
#4
Yes, this is a function.
The equation given is a quadratic equation for an original parabola. All parabolas, when not inverse, are functions. This parabola opens down, so it will pass the vertical line test.
Answer:
30%
for example for 100 the 30% of 100 is 30
but the 1/4 of 100 is 25
Step-by-step explanation:
MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLS I NEED IT
Answer:
D. 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Step by step explanation:
60 minutes is an hour.
30 minutes is half an hour.
When she wrote 2.5, .5 is a half.
2 hours and 30 minutes.
Hope this helps & good luck!
Feel free to message me if you need more help! :)
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.
Answer:
a
Step-by-step explanation:
