All categories

2 years ago

3. What value of makes a true equivalent fraction statement. 5 30 54 C

Mathematics

2 answers:

VashaNatasha [74]2 years ago

5 0

Answer:

$x$ = 9

Step-by-step explanation:

We need to find $x$ which will make an equivalent fraction statement.

$\frac{5}{x} = \frac{30}{54}$

5 x 6 = 30

$x$ x 6 = 54 (to find $x$ we should do 54 ÷ 6 which = 9)

So:

$\frac{5}{6} = \frac{30}{54}$

$x$ = 9

hope this helps :)

kakasveta [241]2 years ago

5 0

Answer is 9
5x6 is 30
9x 6 is 54

You might be interested in

what is the opportunity cost (in civilian output) of a defense buildup that raises military spending from 4.0 to 4.3 percent of

Sati [7]

Answer:

hdhdhdhrheheheheheehhdhdududueueehheb

8 0

2 years ago

Why are some rational numbers not integers?

Mariana [72]

Answer:

Every integer is a rational number, since each integer n can be written in the form n/1. For example 5 = 5/1 and thus 5 is a rational number. However, numbers like 1/2, 45454737/2424242, and -3/7 are also rational, since they are fractions whose numerator and denominator are integers.

7 0

2 years ago

Solve the equation. 3x + 5 = x - 3

Luden [163]

Answer:

x=-4

Step-by-step explanation:

Subtract x from 3x ( 2x )

2x+5=-3

Subtract 5 from -3 ( -8 )

2x=-8

Divide ( -4 )

x=-4

3 0

2 years ago

The spoke of wheel reaches from the center of the wheel to its rim if the circumstance of the wheel is 48 inches, how long is ea

user100 [1]

Answer:

7.6 in

Step-by-step explanation:

c = 2πr Divide each side by 2π

r = C/2π Insert values

r = 48/(2×3.14)

r = 48/6.28

r = 7.6 in

6 0

3 years ago

2. The National Safety Council routinely analyzes the benefit of seat belt use on driver safety. Their data showed that among 28

JulijaS [17]

Answer:

We conclude that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that among 2823 drivers not wearing seat belts, 31 died as a result of injuries, and among 7765 drivers wearing seat belts 16 were killed.

Let $p_1$ = proportion of deaths when drivers were not wearing seat belts.

$p_2$ = proportion of deaths when drivers were wearing seat belts.

So, Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : $p_1=p_2$ {means that there is no difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups}

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_A$ : $p_1\neq p_2$ {means that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups}

The test statistics that would be used here Two-sample z test for proportions;

T.S. = $\frac{(\hat p_1-\hat p_2)-(p_1-p_2)}{\sqrt{\frac{\hat p_1(1-\hat p_1)}{n_1}+\frac{\hat p_2(1-\hat p_2)}{n_2} } }$ ~ N(0,1)

where, $\hat p_1$ = sample proportion of deaths when drivers were not wearing seat belts = $\frac{31}{2823}$ = 0.011

$\hat p_2$ = sample proportion of deaths when drivers were wearing seat belts = $\frac{16}{7765}$ = 0.002

$n_1$ = sample of drivers not wearing seat belts = 2823

$n_2$ = sample of drivers wearing seat belts = 7765

So, the test statistics = $\frac{(0.011-0.002)-(0)}{\sqrt{\frac{0.011(1-0.011)}{2823}+\frac{0.002(1-0.002)}{7765} } }$

= 4.438

The value of z test statistics is 4.438.

Now, at 5% significance level the z table gives critical values of -1.96 and 1.96 for two-tailed test.

Since our test statistic doesn't lie within the range of critical values of z, so we have sufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will fall in the rejection region due to which we reject our null hypothesis.

Therefore, we conclude that there is difference in the proportion of deaths between the 2 groups.

Also, Margin of error (E) = $1.96 \times \sqrt{\frac{\hat p_1(1-\hat p_1)}{n_1}+\frac{\hat p_2(1-\hat p_2)}{n_2} }$

= $1.96 \times \sqrt{\frac{0.011(1-0.011)}{2823}+\frac{0.002(1-0.002)}{7765} }$

= 0.00397

5 0

3 years ago