36 -81.9 - 45.9 I keep getting -45.9
Answer:
-15/6
Step-by-step explanation:
If you look at the first number in each point, the x coordinate, you see the 2nd point is 6 forward from the 1st point. Now the 2nd number is the y coordinate, and you can see it goes down 15 from the 1st coordinate. So y/x is the slope.
Answer:
a
x
2
+
b
x
+
c
=
0
the two roots of the equation take the form
x
1
,
2
=
−
b
±
√
b
2
−
4
a
c
2
a
So, start by adding
−
5
to both sides of the equation to get
2
x
2
+
x
−
5
=
5
−
5
2
x
2
+
x
−
5
=
0
Notice that you have
a
=
2
,
b
=
1
, and
c
=
−
5
. This means that the two solutions will be
x
1
,
2
=
−
1
±
√
1
2
−
4
⋅
2
⋅
(
−
5
)
2
⋅
2
x
1
,
2
=
−
1
±
√
41
4
You can simplify this if you want to get
x
1
=
−
1
+
√
41
4
≅
1.35078
and
x
2
=
−
1
−
√
41
4
≅
−
1.85078
9514 1404 393
Answer:
4a. ∠V≅∠Y
4b. TU ≅ WX
5. No; no applicable postulate
6. see below
Step-by-step explanation:
<h3>4.</h3>
a. When you use the ASA postulate, you are claiming you have shown two angles and the side between them to be congruent. Here, you're given side TV and angle T are congruent to their counterparts, sides WY and angle W. The angle at the other end of segment TV is angle V. Its counterpart is the other end of segment WY from angle W. In order to use ASA, we must show ...
∠V≅∠Y
__
b. When you use the SAS postulate, you are claiming you have shown two sides and the angle between them are congruent. The angle T is between sides TV and TU. The angle congruent to that, ∠W, is between sides WY and WX. Then the missing congruence that must be shown is ...
TU ≅ WX
__
<h3>5.</h3>
The marked congruences are for two sides and a non-included angle. There is no SSA postulate for proving congruence. (In fact, there are two different possible triangles that have the given dimensions. This can be seen in the fact that the given angle is opposite the shortest of the given sides.)
"No, we cannot prove they are congruent because none of the five postulates or theorems can be used."
__
<h3>6.</h3>
The first statement/reason is always the list of "given" statements.
1. ∠A≅∠D, AC≅DC . . . . given
2. . . . . vertical angles are congruent
3. . . . . ASA postulate
4. . . . . CPCTC
Answer:
Null hypothesis is: U1 - U2 ≤ 0
Alternative hypothesis is U1 - U2 > 0
Step-by-step explanation:
The question involves a comparison of the two types of training given to the salespeople. The requirement is to set up the hypothesis that type A training leads to higher mean weakly sales compared to type B training.
Let U1 = mean sales by type A trainees
Let U2 = mean sales by type B trainees
Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) is: U1 - U2 ≤ 0
This implies that type A training does not result in higher mean weekly sales than type B training.
The alternative hypothesis (H1) is: U1 - U2 > 0
This implies that type A training indeed results in higher mean weekly sales than type B training.
