Answer:
Pov:شما به ترجمه گوگل رفت برای دیدن آنچه من گفتم و دیدم این xD
Step-by-step explanation:
Pov:شما به ترجمه گوگل رفت برای دیدن آنچه من گفتم و دیدم این xD
Answer:
65
Step-by-step explanation:
<h2>
Explanation:</h2><h2>
</h2>
An irrational number is a number that can't be written as a simple fraction while a rational number is a number that can be written as the ratio of two integers, that is, as a simple fraction. So in this case we have the number 2 which is ration, and we can multiply it by an irrational number 
such that the product is an irrational number. So any irrational number will meet our requirement because the product of any rational number and an irrational number will lead to an irrational number. For instance:
Answer:
A total of 18 gallons of more gas
Step-by-step explanation:
7 gallons = 210 miles
750-210= 540
210*2 =420 miles 7*2=14 gallons
210/2= 105 7/2=3.5 gallons
525 miles 17.5 miles
210/14= 15 7/14=.5 gallons
540 miles 18 gallons
Answer: First of all, we will add the options.
A. Yes, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
B. Yes, because the regression equation is based on a random sample.
C. Yes, because the association between length and weight is positive.
D. No, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
E. No, because there may not be any 3-inch fish of this species in the pond.
The correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation: It would not be appropriate to use the model to predict the weight of species that is 3 inches long because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
As we can see from the question, the model only accounts for species that are within the range of 0.75 to 1.35 inches in length, and species smaller or larger than that length have not been taken into consideration. Therefore the model can not be used to predict the weights of fishes not with the range accounted for.
