9514 1404 393
Answer:
2 nickels, 9 dimes
Step-by-step explanation:
When there are a number of overlapping shaded areas on the graph, I find it convenient to use the reverse of the inequalities. That makes the <em>unshaded</em> area the solution space. Here, the vertices of the triangular solution space are ...
(2, 9), (2, 13), (6, 9)
Any of the grid points within (or on) this triangle is a possible solution. One of them is (2, 9) corresponding to 2 nickels and 9 dimes.
__
Three solutions are shown:
(x, y) = (2, 9), (3, 10), (4, 11)
Answer:
B ($9.78)
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
D. 28
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
a) Shawn's error was that he Multiplied 15 by 2x only. He didn't Multiply 15 by 7
b) The difference, in square feet, between the actual area of Shawn’s garden and the area found using his expression is given as
98 square feet
Step-by-step explanation:
The area in, square feet, of Shawn’s garden is found be calculating 15(2x + 7). Shawn incorrectly says the area can also be found using the expression 30x + 7.
The correct area =
15(2x + 7).
= 30x + 105 square feet
The error in Shawn’s expression is
= 15(2x + 7)
= 30x + 7 square feet
Shawn's error was that he Multiplied 15 by 2x only. He didn't Multiply 15 by 7
The difference, in square feet, between the actual area of Shawn’s garden and the area found using his expression is given as
30x + 105 square feet - 30x + 7 square feet
= 30x + 105 - (30x + 7)
= 30x - 30x + 105 - 7
= 98 square feet
Answer:
c)The proof writer mentally assumed the conclusion. He wrote "suppose n is an arbitrary integer", but was really thinking "suppose n is an arbitrary integer, and suppose that for this n, there exists an integer k that satisfies n < k < n+2." Under those assumptions, it follows indeed that k must be n + 1, which justifies the word "therefore": but of course assuming the conclusion destroyed the validity of the proof.
Step-by-step explanation:
when we claim something as a hypothesis we can only conclude with therefore at the end of the proof. so assuming the conclusion nulify the proof from the beginning
