Answer:
$1.50
Step-by-step explanation:
To find the best deal, we first want to consider price per unit. To find the price per unit, we divide the price by the number of units. For the 10 shin guard package, our price is 14.50, and we divide that by 10 to get 1.45 . Therefore, our unit price for the package of 10 is $1.45 per shin guard. Similarly, we can find the unit price for the package of 15 to be 22.5/15 = $1.50 per shin guard. As 1.50 is greater than 1.45, the lowest unit price is for the package of 10.
The question is asking for us to compare the prices if we bought 30 of each. For the package of 10, we get 1.45*30 (as we're buying 30 for 1.45) = 43.5 as the total price, and for the package of 15, we get 1.5*30 = 45 as our price. As 15 and 10 are both factors of 30, we don't need to worry about converting it back into packages of 10/15. The difference between buying 30 at the lowest and highest unit price is therefore (45-43.5)=1.5 dollars
Answer:
$637.95
Step-by-step explanation:
convert 8.5% to a decimal by dividing by 100:
8.5÷100= 0.085
then multiply.
587.98×(0.085)=49.97
now add.
587.98+49.97=<u>637.95</u>
Answer:
i think its 4,800
Step-by-step explanation:
multiply all the sides
This question is in reverse (in two ways):
<span>1. The definition of an additive inverse of a number is precisely that which, when added to the number, will give a sum of zero. </span>
<span>The real problem, in certain fields, is usually to show that for all numbers in that field, there exists an additive inverse. </span>
<span>Therefore, if you tell me that you have a number, and its additive inverse, and you plan to add them together, then I can tell you in advance that the sum MUST be zero. </span>
<span>2. In your question, you use the word "difference", which does not work (unless the number is zero - 0 is an integer AND a rational number, and its additive inverse is -0 which is the same as 0 - the difference would be 0 - -0 = 0). </span>
<span>For example, given the number 3, and its additive inverse -3, if you add them, you get zero: </span>
<span>3 + (-3) = 0 </span>
<span>However, their "difference" will be 6 (or -6, depending which way you do the difference): </span>
<span>3 - (-3) = 6 </span>
<span>-3 - 3 = -6 </span>
<span>(because -3 is a number in the integers, then it has an additive inverse, also in the integers, of +3). </span>
<span>--- </span>
<span>A rational number is simply a number that can be expressed as the "ratio" of two integers. For example, the number 4/7 is the ratio of "four to seven". </span>
<span>It can be written as an endless decimal expansion </span>
<span>0.571428571428571428....(forever), but that does not change its nature, because it CAN be written as a ratio, it is "rational". </span>
<span>Integers are rational numbers as well (because you can always write 3/1, the ratio of 3 to 1, to express the integer we call "3") </span>
<span>The additive inverse of a rational number, written as a ratio, is found by simply flipping the sign of the numerator (top) </span>
<span>The additive inverse of 4/7 is -4/7 </span>
<span>and if you ADD those two numbers together, you get zero (as per the definition of "additive inverse") </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>If you need to "prove" it, you begin by the existence of additive inverses in the integers. </span>
<span>ALL integers each have an additive inverse. </span>
<span>For example, the additive inverse of 4 is -4 </span>
<span>Next, show that this (in the integers) can be applied to the rationals in this manner: </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = ? </span>
<span>common denominator, therefore you can factor out the denominator: </span>
<span>(4 + -4)/7 = ? </span>
<span>Inside the bracket is the sum of an integer with its additive inverse, therefore the sum is zero </span>
<span>(0)/7 = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>Since this is true for ALL integers, then it must also be true for ALL rational numbers.</span>
