Answer:
6 i believe
Step-by-step explanation:
delete my question if im wrong:)
Answer:
decimal: x0.6 or fraction: 2/3
Step-by-step explanation:
If f(x) is an anti-derivative of g(x), then g(x) is the derivative of f(x). Similarly, if g(x) is the anti-derivative of h(x), then h(x) must be the derivative of g(x). Therefore, h(x) must be the second derivative of f(x); this is the same as choice A.
I hope this helps.
Answer:
Since the calculated value of z= 2.82 does not lie in the critical region the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that the sample data support the authors' conclusion that the proportion of the country's boys who listen to music at high volume is greater than this proportion for the country's girls.
The value of p is 0 .00233. The result is significant at p < 0.10.
Step-by-step explanation:
1) Let the null and alternate hypothesis be
H0: μboys − μgirls > 0
against the claim
Ha: μboys − μgirls ≤ 0
2) The significance level is set at 0.01
3) The critical region is z ≤ ± 1.28
4) The test statistic
Z= p1-p2/ sqrt [pcqc( 1/n1+ 1/n2)]
Here p1= 397/768= 0.5169 and p2= 331/745=0.4429
pc = 397+331/768+745
pc= 0.4811
qc= 1-pc= 1-0.4811=0.5188
5) Calculations
Z= p1-p2/ sqrt [pcqc( 1/n1+ 1/n2)]
z= 0.5169-0.4429/√ 0.4811*0.5188( 1/768+ 1/745)
z= 2.82
6) Conclusion
Since the calculated value of z= 2.82 does not lie in the critical region the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that the sample data support the authors' conclusion that the proportion of the country's boys who listen to music at high volume is greater than this proportion for the country's girls.
7)
The value of p is 0 .00233. The result is significant at p < 0.10.
