A.) P(defective | foo) = P(defective & foo)/P(foo)
4% = P(defective & foo)/30% . . . . . . . . . plug in the given data
0.04*0.30 = P(defective & foo) = 0.012 = 1.2%
The probability that a widget was produced at the foo factory and is defective is 1.2%.
b.) P(defective | foo) ≠ P(defective) (4% ≠ 5%), so the events P(defective) and P(foo) are NOT independent.
c.) P(foo | defective) = P(defective & foo)/P(defective)
P(foo | defective) = 1.2%/5% = 24%
The probability that a widget was produced at the foo factory given it is defective is 24%.
Answer:
1
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer: try searching it on Google maybe?
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:0.6
Step-by-step explanation:
We can grab 2 points in this table and plug this into the slope formula: (y2-y1)/(x1-x2). The 2 easiest points would be (0,0) and (2, 1.2). Doing this would get us (1.2-0)/(2-0). Simplifying this would get us 1.2/2, or .6.
Answer:
Yes they are congruent and it is explained below
Step-by-step explanation:
There are 5 postulates when testing for congruency and they are;
SSS, SAS, ASA, AAS and HL.
S represents side
A represents angle
H represents hypotenuse
L represents leg
Now, in this our question, we can see that the 3 angles and the three sides of both triangles are equal to each other.
Thus, we can make use of SSS postulate whereby we say the 3 sides of the first triangle are equal to the 3 sides of the second triangle.
Thus, they are congruent.
