The answer is no it will be less here's why let say the original amount is A then a p% increase will be A(1+p/100))
Now from this amount we decrease it by p% this gives A(1+p/100)(1-p/100). We can simplify this expression some by letting x=p/100 then we have A(1+x)(1-x) but this is equal to A(1-x2). You can see that the value of what's inside the () is always <1 as long as x>0. If we calculate how much the amount changes we have A(1-x2)-A=-Ax2 is always a loss.
This is one of the reasons some people lose money in the stock market. If a stock rises 10% and then drops 10% you have actually lost money but it sounds, on the face of it, like you should be even. +10 and -10 percent.
If we now do the calculation for the 25% up and down we have the final amount is is .9375 which is 1.25*.75. and the change is .9375-1=-.0625. So the net result is down 6.25%
Answer:
x= 4/5a
Step-by-step explanation:
5=5/ax+1
Step 1: Multiply both sides by a.
5a=a+5x
Step 2: Flip the equation.
a+5x=5a
Step 3: Add -a to both sides.
a+5x+−a=5a+−a
5x=4a
Step 4: Divide both sides by 5.
5x/5=4a/5
x= 4/5a
Hope this helps!
This is cheating. You aren’t allowed to ask for help strate out.
Answer:
4. It should be less than coefficient on str in the first regression
Step-by-step explanation:
Since the str and income are positively correlated and the coefficient on income in the second regression is positive, the coefficient on str in the second regression therefore should be less than coefficient on str in the first regression.
905 = 9 hundreds + 0 tens + 5 ones
or 8 hundreds, 10 tens, 5 ones
425 = 4 hundreds, 2 tens, 5 ones
8 hundreds, 10 tens, 5 ones
4 hundreds, 2 tens, 5 ones
---------------------------------------subtract
4 hundreds, 8 tens, 0 ones = 480......(905 - 425 = 480)
