Answer: 0.8461
Step-by-step explanation:
Let p be the proportion of residents are against the increase of taxes to fund alternatives to drug addiction treatment.
As per given , we have p=0.40
A random sample is taken with size : n= 400
Expecting sample proportion : 
Now , the probability that more than 150 of the residents surveyed will be against increasing taxes if a random sample of 400 residents are surveyed will be :

![=P(z>\dfrac{0.375-0.40}{\sqrt{\dfrac{0.40(0.60)}{400}}})\ \ [\because\ z=\dfrac{\hat{p}-p}{\sqrt{\dfrac{p(1-p)}{n}}}]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%3DP%28z%3E%5Cdfrac%7B0.375-0.40%7D%7B%5Csqrt%7B%5Cdfrac%7B0.40%280.60%29%7D%7B400%7D%7D%7D%29%5C%20%5C%20%5B%5Cbecause%5C%20z%3D%5Cdfrac%7B%5Chat%7Bp%7D-p%7D%7B%5Csqrt%7B%5Cdfrac%7Bp%281-p%29%7D%7Bn%7D%7D%7D%5D)

[By z-table]
Hence, the approximate probability that more than 150 of the residents surveyed will be against increasing taxes if a random sample of 400 residents are surveyed is 0.8461 .
Pi=3.14, So 86 x 3.14= [ 270.04]
Answer:
4x+12/x^2+9
Step-by-step explanation:
Perimeter
x+3+x+3+x+3+x+3
Area
(x+3)(x+3)
First join the log4 on the left:
log4( x*(x-3) = log4(-7x+21)
Then x = -7, works: -7*(-10)=70 = -7*(-7)+21
x=-3, 18 = 42, does not work
x=3 0=0 works,
However, when one puts x = -7 in the *original* exression, log4(-7) or log4(-10) do not exist (you know why?). So x= -7 is extraneous.
Now x=3 gives log4(0) on the left and right, which does not exist.
So, C is the answer, both are extraneous. Seem to work but indeed don't work in the *original* equation