Answer: the statement made by Tim Cook is TRUE
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that;
in 2007 cost of 1st gen iphone = $499 (base year price)
cost of iphone today = $999 (current year price)
Using the Consumer Price Index
the Consumer Price Index = (cost pf product in current years/cost of product base year) × 100
we substitute
CPI = (999/499) × 100
CPI = 200.2004
so the CPI is 100.2004% higher in the current year than in the base year
Checking the inflation rate
IR = (( CPI this year- CPI last year)/CPI last year) × 100
CPI last year (base year) = 100
CPI current year is = 100.2004
so
IR = (( 100.2004 - 100)/100) × 100
IR = 0.002004 × 100
IR = 0.2004%
THEREFORE the statement made by Tim Cook is TRUE
Answer:
6.2
Step-by-step explanation:
Although there's multiple ways to solve this problem, my method will be to simply find the area for the full triangle (the empty + orange triangles) and subtract the area of the smaller, empty triangle.
Now, you that area for a triangle is 1/2*base*height.
To find the measurements for the full triangle, you must add up the bases for the two smaller triangles:
Height is the same for both triangles so Height total = 4 ft.
Now the total area can be calculated:
Area total= 1/2* base_total * height_total
Area total = 1/2 * 5ft * 4 ft
Area total = 20 / 2 = 10 ft squared
Lastly, subtract the area of the empty triangle from the total triangle to find the orange triangle.
Area Empty Triangle = 1/2 * base_empty * height_empty
Area Empty Triangle = 1/2 * 1.9ft * 4 ft = 7.6 ft / 2 = 3.8 ft squared
Area total - Area empty = 10ft^2 - 3.8ft^2 = 6.2 ft squared
Sin J: 5/13, 0.38
cos J: 12/13, 0.92
tan J: 5/12, 0.42
sin K: 12/13, 0.92
cos K: 5/13, 0.38
tan K: 12/5, 2.40
Answer:
Both (B) and (C) are correct
Step-by-step explanation:
Explaining in simple terms, The Simpson's paradox simply describes a phenomenon which occurs when observable trends in a relationship, which are obvious during singular evaluation of the variables disappears when each of this relationships are combined. This is what played out when hitmire appears to d well on both of natyraknamd artificial turf when separately compared, but isn't the same when the turf data was combined. Also, performance may actually not be related to the turf as turf may Just be. a lurking variable causing a spurious association in performance.
The answer should be positive 5 or 5
