So if Jade makes $306.25 a week and for every hour she works, she makes $8.75, then all you have to do is divide 306.25 by 8.75.
306.25/8.75 = 35 hours should be your answer
Let me know if that doesn't make sense or you still don't understand it :)
PEDMAS
The rule is Paranthesis First
|7-(24÷|3-6|)|
|7-(24÷|-3|)|
Now we have to get the -3 outside the 2 Lines but the lines are saying that if the number inside is negative when you get it outside it has to be positive.
|7-(24÷3)|-
|7-(8)|
|7-8|
|-1|
= 1
Your statemtent is incomplete.
I found the samestatment with the complete words: <span>Simplify
completely quantity x squared minus 3 x minus 54 over quantity x
squared minus 18 x plus 81 times quantity x squared plus 12 x plus </span>36 over x plus 6
Given that your goal is to learn an be able to solve any similar problem, I can teach you assuming that what I found is exactly what you need.
x^2 - 3x - 54 x^2 + 12x + 36
------------------ x ---------------------
x^2 - 18x + 81 x + 6
factor x^2 - 3x - 54 => (x - 9)(x + 6)
factor x^2 - 18x + 81 => (x - 9)^2
factor x^2 + 12x + 36 = (x + 6)^2
Now replace the polynomials with the factors=>
(x - 9) (x + 6) (x + 6)^2 (x + 6)^2 x^2 + 12x + 36
------------------------------ = --------------- = --------------------
(x - 9)^2 (x + 6) (x - 9) x - 9
Answer:
c)The proof writer mentally assumed the conclusion. He wrote "suppose n is an arbitrary integer", but was really thinking "suppose n is an arbitrary integer, and suppose that for this n, there exists an integer k that satisfies n < k < n+2." Under those assumptions, it follows indeed that k must be n + 1, which justifies the word "therefore": but of course assuming the conclusion destroyed the validity of the proof.
Step-by-step explanation:
when we claim something as a hypothesis we can only conclude with therefore at the end of the proof. so assuming the conclusion nulify the proof from the beginning
