Answer: that not a real question it cant be answered has to be missing something
Step-by-step explanation:)
Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Answer:
-31
Step-by-step explanation:
you have to get the variable on one side alone. so you would add the -7 to the 24 then divide by -1 because you have a -x when adding the -7 to the 24
Answer:
A unit rate must have a denominator of one:
n/1
So you would get n by dividing 112 by 8: 112 divided by 8 = 14 so n = 14.
14/1 or $14 p/ hr
Figure 4 is the image of the square LMNP after the translation.
<u>Step-by-step explanation:</u>
Let us see the coordinates of the pre image LMNP as,
L (-3,1)
M(-1,1)
N(-1,-1)
P(-3,-1)
after translation of (x,y) → (x+5, y -3) the coordinates of the image obtained as,
L'(2,-2)
M'(4,-2)
N'(4,-4)
P'(2,-4) which matches the image 4.