Answer:


Since the p value is lower than the significance level given of 0.05 we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis on this case. And the best conclusion for this case is:
We (reject) the null hypothesis. That means that we (found) evidence to support the alternative.
Step-by-step explanation:
We have the following info given:
represent the sampel mean for the age of customers
represent the population standard deviation
represent the sample size selected
We want to test if the mean age of her customers is over 35 so then the system of hypothesis for this case are:
Null hypothesis: 
Alternative hypothesis 
The statistic for this case is given by:

And replacing the data given we got:

We can calculate the p value since we are conducting a right tailed test like this:

Since the p value is lower than the significance level given of 0.05 we have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis on this case. And the best conclusion for this case is:
We (reject) the null hypothesis. That means that we (found) evidence to support the alternative.
Answer: Therefore, the geometric mean of 8 and 18 is 12. Therefore, the geometric mean of 8 and 18 is 12.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
A) x = 6 y = 6√3
Step-by-step explanation:
30-60-90 Triangle rule states that the hypothesis is 2x, the short leg is x, and the long leg is x√3. So, the short leg is 12/2 = 6, and the long leg is 6√3.
<em>Answer</em><em>:</em><em> </em><em>3</em><em>7</em>
<em>Step</em><em> </em><em>by</em><em> </em><em>step</em><em> </em><em>explanation</em><em>:</em>
<em>y</em><em>+</em><em>2</em><em>9</em><em>+</em><em>4</em><em>0</em><em>+</em><em>2</em><em>y</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>8</em><em>0</em><em>°</em><em>(</em><em> </em><em>sum</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>angle</em><em> </em><em>in</em><em> </em><em>stra</em><em>ight</em><em> </em><em>line</em><em>)</em>
<em>or</em><em>,</em><em> </em><em>y</em><em>+</em><em>2</em><em>y</em><em>+</em><em>2</em><em>9</em><em>+</em><em>4</em><em>0</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>8</em><em>0</em><em>°</em>
<em>or</em><em>,</em><em>3</em><em>y</em><em>+</em><em>6</em><em>9</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>8</em><em>0</em>
<em>or</em><em>,</em><em>3</em><em>y</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>8</em><em>0</em><em>-</em><em>6</em><em>9</em>
<em>or</em><em>,</em><em>3</em><em>y</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>1</em><em>1</em>
<em>or</em><em>,</em><em>y</em><em>=</em><em>1</em><em>1</em><em>1</em><em>/</em><em>3</em>
<em>y</em><em>=</em><em>3</em><em>7</em>
<em>hope</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>helps</em>
<em>Good</em><em> </em><em>luck</em><em> on</em><em> your</em><em> assignment</em>
Answer:
No, it is not.
Step-by-step explanation:
comparing the two given values, 1.75 and 6, estimating 1.75 for 6 is not reasonable. This is due to the fact that converting 1.75 to the nearest whole number gives 2 which is far away from 6. Since,
6 - 2 = 4
So, estimating 1.75 for 6 would involve a large value of error. Which make it unreasonable. It would have been more reasonable to estimate 1.75 for 2.