Answer:
There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the technique performs differently than the traditional method.
Step-by-step explanation:
The null hypothesis is:

The alternate hypotesis is:

The test statistic is:

In which X is the sample mean,
is the value tested at the null hypothesis,
is the standard deviation and n is the size of the sample.
A researcher used the technique with 260 students and observed that they had a mean of 94 hours. Assume the standard deviation is known to be 6.
This means, respectively, that 
The test-statistic is:



The pvalue is:
2(P(Z < -2.69))
P(Z < -2.69) is the pvalue of Z when X = -2.69, which looking at the z-table, is 0.0036
2*(0.0036) = 0.0072
0.0072 < 0.01, which means that the null hypothesis is accepted, that is, there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the technique performs differently than the traditional method.
The last one I believe because adjacent means beside eachother
These are the angle measurements, hope this helps you and let me know if im wrong
Answer:
The correct answer is first option m<2 + m<3
Step-by-step explanation:
From the figure we can see a triangle with angles, <1, <2 and <3
By angle sum property we can write,
m<1 + m< 2 + m<3 = 180°
m<1 = 180 - (m<2 + m<3) ----(1)
Also we know that, <1 and <4 are linear pairs
m<1 + m<4 = 180°
m<1 = 180 - m<4 ---(2)
Compare (1) and (2) we get
m<4 = m<2 + m<3