Answer:
I'm not an expert here, this is a best guess!
But I would say if there is no chance that of him incurring excess costs of less than $500, then he knows without insurance he'll end up paying at least $500, possibly more out of pocket, without the insurance.
so I would say He ends up spending the least amount out if pocket by going with option A. for $75. that's $75 out of pocket with no deductible and it covers his $500+ in excess costs....B and C would also cover the excess, but would each cost $140 or $275 out of pocket at the end of the day....
with that being said, I'd say it's worth it to buy the insurance....even if he doesn't have any excess costs, he's spent $75 dollars for the peace of mind to know he's covered either way, and if he does incur the excess costs he's spent $75 rather that $500+....Even if the excess charges are only $100, which it says there is no chance of happening, but still, then he's still saved $25 altogether. Unless I'm reading it wrong, Option A saves him the most money either way, and is worth it to buy the insurance!
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
So A = the child is 5-10 years old and B = the child is 11-13 years of age and that covers all the children in the study. I = calcium intake is inadequate.
Recall that a square is just a rectangle with all sides equal.
and the area of a rectangle is just length * width.
The answer is that the equation y=5x+31 is perpendicular to the equation y=-1/5x+3 and that equation passes through (-5,6) also y=5x+31 is in y=mx+b form already
y=mx+b
At least means it can be larger than or equal to.
X >= 15
No more than means less than or equal to:
X <= $7
