<span>
Let's analyze Hannah's work, step-by-step, to see if she made any mistakes. </span>In Step 1, Hannah wrote

<span> as the sum of two separate derivatives </span>

<span>using the </span><span>sum rule.
</span>
This step is perfectly fine. In Step 2,

was kept as it is, and

was rewritten as

using the constant rule.Indeed, according to the constant rule, the derivative of a constant number is equal to zero.
This step is perfectly fine. In Step 3,

was rewritten as

supposedly using the constant multiple rule.
The problem is that according to the constant multiple rule,

should be rewritten as

and not as

.
<span>
Therefore, Hannah made a mistake in this step.</span>
What? What work is supposed to be shown? That’s more like a statement
Step-by-step explanation:
A strike in bowling meant all 10 pins knocked down.
In this case, there is only 1 strike
Answer:
The answer to your question is: 60.3°
Step-by-step explanation:
Data
height = 7 m
shadow = 4 m
angle = ?
Process
tangent Ф = opposite side / adjacent side
tangent Ф = 7 / 4
tan Ф = 1.75
Ф = 60.3°