A
Step-by-step explanation:
First and foremost, we can rule out B and C because they are less than one and would make the hexagon smaller instead of bigger. Now, when we measure the units, we see that it goes up by 2 squares on the graph. So, by process of elimination and measurement, we get the answer of A.
Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
The answer would be -12+8i
Answer:
3x - 4y = -32
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Given
Initially, he drank 3 pints of water
Then, 
more cups
Required
How many cups did Ian drink altogether
This question can be solved by adding the size of water he drank during the hike and when he got home
i.e.
But the answer should be in cups;
So, number of pints has to be converted to number cups
Given that 1 pint = 2 cups;
3 pints will be 3 * 2 cups
3 pints = 6 cups;
So,
Altogether, he drank 
of water
