Answer: i believe its B
Step-by-step explanation:
sorry if this dont help
Answer:
I think 3
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer: 2(−5x^2
+9)(5x^2
+9)
Step-by-step explanation:
Given: 162-50x^4
Factor out 2: 2(81-25x^4)
Rewrite: 2(9^2-(5x^2)^2)
Use difference of squares: 2(9-5x^2)(9+5x^2)
Reorder (if you need to) 2(-5x^2+9)(5x^2+9)
1. The results are nowhere near to being statistically significant.
2. The results are almost but not quite statistically significant.
3. The results are just barely statistically significant.
4. The results are strongly statistically significant.
A group of 10 people is choosing a chairperson and vice-chairperson. They put all 10 people's names into a hat. The first name drawn becomes chair. The second name drawn becomes vice-chair. How many possible combinations of chair and vice-chair are there?
1. 19
2. 90
3. 100
4. 10! (10 factorial)
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is incomplete. The complete question is:
A production line operation is designed to fill cartons with laundry detergent to a mean weight of 32 ounces. A sample of cartons is periodically selected and weighed to determine whether under filling or overfilling is occurring. If the sample data lead to a conclusion of under filling or overfilling, the production line will be shut down and adjusted to obtain proper filling.
A. Formulate the null and alternative hypotheses that will help in deciding whether to shut down and adjust the production line.
B. Comment on the conclusion and the decision when H0 cannot be rejected.
C. Comment on the conclusion and the decision when H0 can be rejected.
Solution:
A) We would set up the hypothesis. Under filling or over filling means two ways. Thus, it is a two tailed test
For null hypothesis,
H0: μ = 32
For alternative hypothesis,
H1: μ ≠ 32
B) if H0 cannot be rejected, it means that there was insufficient evidence to reject it. Thus, it would be concluded that the production line operation filled the cartons with laundry detergent to a mean weight of 32 ounces.
C) There was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, it can be concluded that there was under filling or over filling.
