Answer:
x = 4 or x = -10 for equation x^2 + 6x = 40
Step-by-step explanation:
x^2 + 6 = 40
x^2 = 40 - 6
x^2 = 34
x = root(34) or x = -root(34) but this is not in the answer choice.
is it x^2 + 6x = 40
x^2 + 6x + 9 = 40 +9
(x + 3)^2 = 49
x + 3 = 7 or x + 3 = -7
x = 4 or x = -10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Find the circumference of the circle and show work. [refer to
attachment]
Formula for Circumference of a Circle:-
Where
- C = circumference
- π = pi (3.14…)
- r = radius, which in this case is equal to 8
Substitute the value of r and solve:-
C=2π(8)
On simplification,
C=16π
On further simplification,
C=50.3
Therefore, we conclude that the circumference of this circle is
<h3>Good luck.</h3>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Your answer is 25. You do 40 times 5 divided by 8 or 8 times 5 is 40 and 5 times 5 is 25. Hope this helps
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.
