Answer:
Total area of figure = [3x² + 7x + 6] feet²
Step-by-step explanation:
By dividing both rectangle by vertical line;
Given:
Length of big rectangle = (x + 3) feet
Width of big rectangle = (x + 2) feet
Length of small rectangle = 2x feet
Width of small rectangle = (x + 1) feet
Find:
Total area of figure
Computation:
Area of rectangle = Length x width
Total area of figure = Area of big rectangle + Area of small rectangle
Total area of figure = [(x + 3)(x + 2)] + [(2x)(x + 1)]
Total area of figure = [x²+ 2x + 3x + 6] + [2x² + 2x]
Total area of figure = [3x² + 7x + 6] feet²
Bottom right! You are correct. :)
Answer:
<h2>see below</h2>
Step-by-step explanation:
<h3>
Question-6:</h3>
we are given a equation

to solve so
recall logarithm multiplication law:

simplify multiplication:

remember 
so

cancel out
from both sides:

simplify squares:

move left hand side expression to right hand side and change its sign:
since we are moving left hand side expression to right hand side there'll be only 0 left in the left hand side

rewrite it to standard form i.e ax²+bx+c=0

rewrite -6x as 2x-8x:

factor out x and 8:

group:



<h3>Question-7:</h3>
move left hand side log to right hand side:

use mutilation logarithm rule;

so

cancel out log from both sides:

make it standard form:

factor:

so

Here,
Selling Price (S.P) = Rs 1869
Loss = 11%
Cost Price (C.P) = ?
Let, C.P be x
Now,
Sp = Cp - loss% of Cp
1869 = x - 11/100*x
1869 = (100x - 11x)/100
186900 = 89x
◆ x = Rs 2100
Cp = Rs 2100
I hope you understand...
It's a Right answer...
Thanks♥♥
Answer:
In a nutshell,
is not equivalent to
.
Step-by-step explanation:
Now we proceed to demonstrate that Edgar's statement is false:
1)
Given
2)
Modulative property/Existence of multiplicative inverse
3)

4)
Modulative property/Existence of multiplicative inverse
5)
/Result
In a nutshell,
is not equivalent to
.