Answer: Choice B
(-1,0), (-1,-2), (-3, -1), and (-3, -2)
============================================================
Explanation:
Let's focus on the point (2,0)
If we shift it 3 units to the left, then we subtract 3 from the x coordinate to get 2-3 = -1 as its new x coordinate. The y coordinate stays the same.
That means we move from (2,0) to (-1,0)
Based on this alone, choice B must be the answer as it's the only answer choice that mentions (-1,0).
If you shifted the other given points, you should find that they land on other coordinates mentioned in choice B.
Answer:
So we want to know how to write the inequality for Beth's jogging. The total number of miles Beth plans to jog cant go over 12, and she has already jogged for 3 miles, then she needs to jog for another m miles. This can be written mathematically like: 3 + m < 12. In other words: 3 miles + m miles Beth still plans to jog cant go over 12 miles.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
the 4th answer I(x) = P(x-4)
Step-by-step explanation:
the first 2 options are out, because just adding values to the functional result values changes the y value, and the curve is pushed up or down. but not to the side.
just imagine
I(x) = P(x-4) means that the function value of previously at x-4 happens now at x. 4 units "later" (or more to the right).
"x+4" would make the functional value at previously x+4 happen now at x. so, everything would shift to the left (happen "earlier").
therefore, the 4th answer option is correct.
Answer:
The number generator is fair. It picked the approximate percentage of red lollipops most of the time.
Step-by-step explanation:
The other answer choices represent various misinterpretations of the nature of the experiment or the meaning of the numbers generated.
___
A number generator can be quite fair, but give wildly varying percentages of red lollipops. Attached are the results of a series of nine (9) simulations of the type described in the problem statement. You can see that the symmetrical result shown in the problem statement is quite unusual. A number generator that gives results that are too ideal may not be sufficiently random.
It is pretty simple
All you have to do is multiply 186 times .65 which you get 120.9
So that's all you have to do
