Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Hi there,
I think the answer is
14
Have a nice day
Answer:
-76-43i
Step-by-step explanation:
First expand the multiplied terms
8-3i-(64+64i-24i+24)
8-3i-(64+40i+24)
Simplify
8-3i-64-40i-24
-76-43i
Answer:
(-1, 4)
Step-by-step explanation:
Point B is 5 units below point A, and point E is 5 units above point D: AB = ED. This means that BC will be equal to EF. B and C are 7 units apart, so 7 units left from E is (-1, 4).
Hope this helps!
Answer: you would times everything I don’t remember how I did this but I did it by multiplying everything hope I helped and you would add the cm with the answer you got