Answer: i can’t read it could try upload it again
Explanation: Henlo :3
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%.
Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:
ST = w + 6,
PR = w
From the diagram given, we can deduce that PR is the midsegment of ∆QST. Therefore, according to the midsegment theorem:
PR = ½ of ST
Plug in the values into the equation and solve for w.

(distributive property of equality)
(subtraction property of equality)
(multiplication property of equality)

(subtraction property of equality)

Divide both sides by -1


If you find the least common denominator, that is 143. Then, you convert 2/13=22/143 and 1/11=13/143. Next, subtract 22/143-13/143=9/143 which is B
Please learn your fractions :/ they’ll be useful for the future, trust me. If you need further help to understand, idk if there is a PM feature here but if there is feel free. But I have answered 3 fraction questions for you within this hour and it’s under the high school level category??? Thank you and have a nice night.
The answer is 60.50 DO THE MATH LAZY!!!!!!!