Answer:
For this problem we just refer to the descriptions that you placed under the prompt. According to Malcolm's bandmate, it would be easier to solve the trinomial by subtracting 350 from both sides and then factoring the equation. Malcolm, on the other hand, thinks that we should manipulate the equation in order to make it a perfect square trinomial.
2. This trinomial would be easily solved by using Malcolm's idea. As Malcolm pointed out, you just need to apply a formula to manipulate the equation then you can find the roots in no time. Finding the factors of 350 just to solve the trinomial would be the hard way to go since you would be considering a lot of them.
3. For this item, we are just tasked to follow what Malcolm's bandmate started doing. So, we would just need to think of two numbers that would result to -350 when multiplied. To start off, let's think of something we can divide 350 by, let's say 70. Now, if we divide -350 by 70 the result would be -5 therefore that would be our two numbers (p and q). p + q would therefore just be 65.
Explanation:
add up and keep doing it
Answer:
Tell them that you're in love I think they'll get it l.m.a.o
Explanation:
The supreme court has its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government. the president and Congress, recognizes the limits of it's own power
Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Answer:
Well gay rights are not really awsome
Explanation:
