<em>The</em><em> </em><em>answer</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>option</em><em> </em><em>D</em><em>.</em>
<em>Hope</em><em> </em><em>this</em><em> </em><em>will</em><em> </em><em>help</em><em> </em><em>u</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>:</em><em>)</em>
Answer:
72
Step-by-step explanation:
l = 5w
A = l*w
180 = 5w *w
180 = 5w^2
Divide each side by 5
180/5 = 5w^2 /5
36 = w^2
Taking the square root of each side
sqrt(36) = sqrt(w)^2
6 =w
l = 5w = 5*6 = 30
The perimeter is
P = 2(l+w)
P = 2(6+30) = 2(36) = 72
Answer:
680 students
Step-by-step explanation:
The 68 - 95 - 99.7 rule (empirical rule) states that 68% of the population lies within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% of the population lies within two standard deviations and 95% of the population lies within three standard deviations.
Hence since it was said that within 1 deviation (of the mean) of all people like MATH 123, therefore the number of people that like MATH 123 is:
number of people that like MATH 123 = 68% of the population
number of people that like MATH 123 = 0.68 * 1000
number of people that like MATH 123 = 680 students
Answer:
For the reasons mentioned in the explanation section, it is indeed a weak generalization:
Step-by-step explanation:
- No, there is not enough data provided on certain subjects' age, socioeconomic status, etc. that may have influenced the investing decision.
- No, the survey isn't random, the study is irregular because each has a fair probability of expressing their true beliefs, here in this query it's written they've been told individuals are given actual medication, which may have contributed to the Hawthorne studies giving incorrect outcomes.
- No, the amount isn't sufficient mostly on the premise of 28 subject areas with be provided oxytocin, and therefore only one test being performed should we not be able to determine the results to implement for certain persons including billions of populace, it would be a hurried generalization.
