I could help if I had a picture of the problem
Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
Answer:
the answer is 5 got it right on quiz
Answer:
He is being paid $180 on Monday.
Step-by-step explanation:
Since it asks for function notation, I'll relate the variables accordingly. So, x, the independent variable, is the one that is being adjusted. That would be the amount of miles that he is assigned so x = miles assigned. Next, the dependent variable, f(x), is the amount of cash he is paid, so f(x) = total amount paid.
Here is the function that can be used to represent the situation:
f(x) = 3.50x + 75
Now, plug in 30 to find out how much he earns after completing a 30 mile route:
f(30) = 3.50(30) + 75
f(30) = 105 + 75
f(30) = 180
Also, the $75 is a fixed amount. No variable association.
Answer:
hey guys
Step-by-step explanation:
I am indian and I want to make Canadian friends
who will be my friend
