The correct answer is a =9.5
Make a table with the angle theta as independent variable and the radius r as dependent variable:
theta radius = 4+2cos theta radius
------- -----------------------------------------
0 4+2 6
pi/6 4+2cos pi/6 = 4+2(sqrt(3)/2
Perhaps you have already plotted this using webassign (but remember that you have not shared an illustration here). (Please don't type "webassign plot" repeatedly, as it accomplishes nothing.)
Generally, when one wishes to find the area of a region defined by polar functions (as is the case here), one first determines suitable limits of integration from the finished curve and checks them through actual integration.
Which formula should you use to find the area: Look up "areas in polar coordinates," as I did. The formula is as follows:
Enclosed area = Integral from alpha to beta of (1/2)r^2 d(theta). Note that the initial radius here is 6 (since r = 4 plus 2 cos theta is 4+2 when theta = 0).
Answer:
0.071 to 0.129
Step-by-step explanation:
In a sample with a number n of people surveyed with a probability of a success of 
, and a confidence interval 
, we have the following confidence interval of proportions.
In which
z is the zscore that has a pvalue of 
.
For this problem, we have that:
In a sample of 400 voters, 360 indicated they favor the incumbent governor. This means that 400-360 = 40 do not favor the incumbent governor. So 
95% confidence interval
So 
, z is the value of Z that has a pvalue of 
, so 
.
The lower limit of this interval is:
The upper limit of this interval is:
The correct answer is:
0.071 to 0.129
To surround it? So In other words, you are looking at the perimeter
Width= 6 feet
Length= 4 feet
So you multiply because there are two two even sides
4×6=24
<em>Answer=24 feet </em>
The plaintiff's testimony is admissible because plaintiff as personal knowledge of the statement of a party-opponent.
<h3>How to illustrate the information?</h3>
The recording is coincidental with firsthand knowledge. The person could testify based upon firsthand knowledge and could also lay the foundation under Article 9 to authenticate the tape.
In this case, the tape is not required as a matter of the original writing rule, giving the proponent options to offer testimony from memory, and/or the opportunity to corroborate the in-court testimony by a demonstrative exhibit
Learn more about testimony on:
brainly.com/question/26788566
#SPJ1
