Xy = 54
x + y = 7
x + y = 7
3.5 + 6.45i + y = 7
- (3.5 + 6.45i) - (3.5 + 6.45i)
y = 3.5 - 6.45i
(x, y) = (3.5 + 6.45i, (3.5 - 6.45i)
or
x + y = 7
3.5 - 6.45i + y = 7
- (3.5 - 6.45i) - (3.5 - 6.45i)
y = 3.5 + 6.45i
(x, y) = (3.5 - 6.45i, 3.5 + 6.45i)
The two numbers that add up to 7 and can multiply to 54 is 3.5 ± 6.45i.
Answer:
so rate is 4.72 %
Step-by-step explanation:
Given data
time (t) = 5 year = 5×4 = 20 quarterly
amount = $27456
principal = $1225
to find out
interest rate (r)
solution
we use here amount formula that is
amount = principal (
-1 ) / r .....................1
put all value principal , amount and time in equation 1 and we get rate
rate is r/4 because it is quarterly payment
amount = principal (
-1 ) / r/4
27456 = 1225 (
-1 ) / r/4
( -1 ) / r/4 = 27456/ 1225
(
-1 ) / r = 27456/ (1225 × 4)
( -1 ) = r 27456/ (1225 × 4)
now by the tvm solver and amount $27456
graph value
we get r = 0.0472
so rate is 4.72 %
Answer:
C. There isn't much evidence to support a conclusion that the presence of carpet is associated with an increase or decrease in the mean bacterial concentration of air.
Step-by-step explanation:
A. There are outliers in these data, so we can't rely on the two-sample t test.
There are no outliers, as the seven rooms for both sample have similar size and function.
B. This test is unreliable because the populations we're sampling from are heavily skewed.
We don't know if the populations are heavily skewed, but this effect should be appeased by the sampling.
C. There isn't much evidence to support a conclusion that the presence of carpet is associated with an increase or decrease in the mean bacterial concentration of air.
Correct conclusion, as the P-value is surely greater than the significance level (usually 0.10 at most).
D. There is fairly strong evidence to support a conclusion that the presence of carpet is associated with an increase or decrease in the mean bacterial concentration of air.
There is no evidence as the P-value is greater than the significance level.
Answer:
The solution can be defined as follows:
Step-by-step explanation:
Wetland Percentage:
![0] 9\\\\1] None\\\\2] 0 4 7\\\\3] 0 3 5 5 5 7 8\\\\4] 2 2 5 5 8\\\\5] 0 0 1 1 5 9 9\\\\6] 0 8\\\\7] 1\\\\8] 7 7 9\\\\9] 0\\](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=0%5D%209%5C%5C%5C%5C1%5D%20None%5C%5C%5C%5C2%5D%200%204%207%5C%5C%5C%5C3%5D%200%203%205%205%205%207%208%5C%5C%5C%5C4%5D%202%202%205%205%208%5C%5C%5C%5C5%5D%200%200%201%201%205%209%209%5C%5C%5C%5C6%5D%200%208%5C%5C%5C%5C7%5D%201%5C%5C%5C%5C8%5D%207%207%209%5C%5C%5C%5C9%5D%200%5C%5C)
- These details are very symmetrical, perhaps pretty biased.
- There might be a gap whereby shows that none of the 48 lowest states have lost 10 to 19% of all its wetlands.
- These statistics were distributed between 20% and 60%.
