Substitute the value of the variable and then simplify

Finger [1]

Answer:

probably b

Step-by-step explanation:

I think for the other 3 answers, you are trying to have the x's have exponents, making them non-linear. While since b increases by 5 when x increases by 1, it is a linear function

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The graph of a linear relation passes through the point (-2,7) and has a slope of 1/6.

docker41 [41]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

eq. of any line withslope 1/6 is

y=1/6x+c

∵ it passes through (-2,7)

so 7=1/6(-2)+c

c=7+1/3=22/3

eq. of line is

y=1/6x+22/3

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

PLEASE HELP!!! I need an urgent answer and I'll give brainiest just please answer this easy question!

Leya [2.2K]

Answer:

y , add 7, multiply by 3, then subtract 6.or Solve the system of equations and choose the correct answer from the list of options. x − y = 7 y = 3x + 12 2 over 19 comma 2 over 33 negative 2 over 19 comma negative 33 over 2 negative 19 over 2 comma negative 33 over 2 19 over 2 comma 33 over 2

Step-by-step explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

The correlation between the height and weight of children aged 6 to 9 is found to be about r = 0.8. Suppose we use the height x

Andrew [12]

Answer:

$r=\frac{n(\sum xy)-(\sum x)(\sum y)}{\sqrt{[n\sum x^2 -(\sum x)^2][n\sum y^2 -(\sum y)^2]}}$

The value of r is always between $-1 \leq r \leq 1$

And we have another measure related to the correlation coefficient called the R square and this value measures the % of variance explained between the two variables of interest, and for this case we have:

$r^2 = 0.8^2 = 0.64$

So then the best conclusion for this case would be:

c. the fraction of variation in weights explained by the least-squares regression line of weight on height is 0.64.

Step-by-step explanation:

For this case we know that the correlation between the height and weight of children aged 6 to 9 is found to be about r = 0.8. And we know that we use the height x of a child to predict the weight y of the child

We need to rememeber that the correlation is a measure of dispersion of the data and is given by this formula:

$r=\frac{n(\sum xy)-(\sum x)(\sum y)}{\sqrt{[n\sum x^2 -(\sum x)^2][n\sum y^2 -(\sum y)^2]}}$

The value of r is always between $-1 \leq r \leq 1$

And we have another measure related to the correlation coefficient called the R square and this value measures the % of variance explained between the two variables of interest, and for this case we have:

$r^2 = 0.8^2 = 0.64$

So then the best conclusion for this case would be:

c. the fraction of variation in weights explained by the least-squares regression line of weight on height is 0.64.

3 0

3 years ago

A number sentence is shown below: 45 and 1Division sign1 over 6 equals 272 Part A: Create a story or context for this number sen

SIZIF [17.4K]

Answer:

A

Step-by-step explanation:

5 0

4 years ago

Substitute the value of the variable and then simplify￼

Substitute the value of the variable and then simplify