Answer: The answer is A.
Step-by-step explanation: The only valid conclusion that is listed in the options is choice A. The correct one is that the length of a person’s foot is a cause of their shoe size, which implies that there is also a correlation between the length of a person’s foot and their shoe size.
Answer:
- <em>convert </em>the mixed fractions to improper fractions (where the numerator is greater than or equal to the denominator): multiply the whole number part by the fraction's denominator, add that to the numerator, write the result on top of the denominator.
- if the denominators are not the same, work out the common denominator and <em>rewrite </em>the fractions with the same denominators
- subtract by subtracting the numerators and writing the result over the denominator
- convert back to mixed fractions by dividing the numerator by the denominator, write down the whole number answer, write down the remainder above the denominator.
Example
convert to improper fractions:
common denominator = 3 × 5 = 15, so:
subtract:
convert back to mixed fractions:
Answer:
a. 8.95
b. it is
c. yes it belongs
d. males are 2.574 taller than females on average.
Step-by-step explanation:
GIven the regression outpuit that we have in this question, the value of the t test statistics for the shoe size can be solved as
a. test statistic = 1.164/0.13
t test = 8.95
b. the regression coefficient of shoe size is 1.164, this is statistically significant
c. Yes the variable shoe size does belong to the model.
d. The regression coefficient of gender shows that on the average, while holding other variables constant, males are 2.574 inches taller than the their female counterparts.
10000:100*11=1100 income per year
21000-10000=11000 need to have income
11000:1100=10 years will pass time