Answer:
c. -oo < x < -1
Step-by-step explanation:
according to the graph the function possitive
=> y > 0 , and x < -1
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:
correct answer is option C.
Step-by-step explanation:
net income of a year = $35,000
accounts receivable is increased (AR)= $7,000
accounts payable decrease(AP) = $3,000
depreciation expense = $8,000
net cash provided = net income - increase in current asset (AR) - decrease in current asset (AP) +non cash flow
net cash provided = $35,000 -$7,000-$3,000+ $8,000
= $33000
hence the correct answer is option C.
Answer:
blabity-booo
Step-by-step explanation:
i love you ;)
