Answer:
(1/2, -1)
Step-by-step explanation:
The midpoint is the average of the end points:
M = (R + S)/2 = ((4, -7) + (-3, 5))/2 = ((4-3)/2, (-7+5)/2) = (1/2, -2/2)
M = (1/2, -1)
The answer is triangle number 2
You have the right idea so far, but you forgot to finish it up.
Point slope form is
y - y1 = m(x - x1)
where m is the slope, and (x1,y1) is the point the line goes through. As you can see, we have infinitely many choices for (x1,y1). If you use the y intercept point (0,5), then
y - y1 = m(x - x1)
y - 5 = -1(x - 0) ..... this is one of infinitely many possible answers
OR
If you use the point (2,3), then we'd say
y - y1 = m(x - x1)
y - 3 = -1(x - 2) ..... which is another possible answer
There are infinitely many other choices, but I'm only picking the points in which your teacher has shown as big dots.
By the way, nice work on getting the correct answer for the slope-intercept form.
Answer:
What do Americans think about preferential hiring of women? Has there been a change in the past decade? In 2000(group 1) and 2010(Group 2), the General Social Survey asked participants if they would favor or oppose preferential hiring of women. In 2000, out of 849 respondents, 271 said yes. In 2010, out of 696 respondents, 225 said yes. The 95% confidence interval for p1-p2 is (-0.0509, 0.04273). What would be an appropriate conclusion? O We are 95% confident that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2000 is 0.04723. We are 95% confident that the pulation proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2010 is 0.04723. We are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2000. O We are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2010.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
the answer is 230 calories :)
Step-by-step explanation:
divide 160 by 16 to find out how much 1-oz is then times it by 23 to get the amount of calories in 23-oz. There you go I hope it helps :)
