Based on the cost of the calculator, the discount, the shipping fee, and the tax, the total cost of the purchase was<u> a. $80.07</u>
The cost of the calculator was:
<em>= Cost of calculator x ( 1 - discount)</em>
= 83 x ( 1 - 15%)
= $70.55
The sales tax would be:
= 70.55 x 4.5%
= $3.17
The total cost would be:
<em>= Cost + Sales tax + Shipping fee</em>
= 70.55 + 3.17 + 6.35
= $80.07
In conclusion, the total is $80.07.
<em>Find out more on such at brainly.com/question/11239587. </em>
<h2>Hey there! </h2>
<h3>The answer is: </h3>
<h3>Option 'B' </h3>
<h2>BECAUSE root 19 is irrational. </h2>
<h2>Hope it help you </h2>
In the equation, 20 is the original number of fish so we do not change that value to compensate for growth every half year. We will have to change the rate of growth, i.e, 3 and bring 1/2 into its power,
f(x) = 20(3)^(x/2) is correct
<u>Explanation:</u>
a) First, note that the Type I error refers to a situation where the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true. Hence, her null hypothesis would be H0: mean daily demand of her clothes in this region should be greater than or equal to 100.
The implication of Type I error in this case is that Mary <u>rejects</u> that the mean daily demand of her clothes in this region is greater than or equal to 100 when it is actually true.
b) While, the Type II error, in this case, is a situation where Mary accepts the null hypothesis when it is actually false. That is, Mary <u>accepts</u> that the mean daily demand of her clothes in this region is greater than or equal to 100 when it is actually false.
c) The Type I error would be important to Mary because it shows that she'll be having a greater demand (which = more sales) for her products despite erroneously thinking otherwise.
1/24
there is 1 inch on the scale for every 24 inches on the actual window
