Answer:
no enough evidence to draw up a conclusion
Step-by-step explanation:
Data:
let: 
= decay after 2 weeks
= decay after 16 weeks
Making the hypotheses:
Null hypothesis; 
the deviation = 0.05
the standard difference = 4
Conditions:
The normal distribution curve can be plotted on a graph and the plot shows that the distribution is a skewed distribution.
Then,
Therefore, it can be concluded that 0.1983 > 0.05. This presents our failure to reject the null hypothesis.
Thus, there is not enough evidence to conclude that polyester decays more in less than 2 weeks.
I believe the answer would be X=7
It’s been a little bit
Take an example: The salary per hour:
Assume x (variable) is the number of hours worked and assume THAT THE RATE PER HOUR IS $10, then:
If you work x hours at the hourly rate of$10, you will generate an income,
say, y that is equal the number of hours worked by the rate per hour, that is:
y = 10.x. The more hour(x) you work, the more income(y) you get.
Hence we created a relationship between y and x , or in English, between the earning and the number of hours worked.
Moreover y depends on x, if there is no x, there is no y and if x increases, y increases. However x is an INDEPENDENT variable because you can
give to x any number & y will follow
Roots test tells us to take the factors of the 20 divided by the factors of the coefficient of the the first.
factors of 20 are 1,2,4,5,10,20
factors of 1 are 1
so plus or minus 1/1, 2/1, 4/1, 5/1, 10/1, 20/1 are all possible rational zeros
Answer:
<h2>√2,2√4</h2>
Step-by-step explanation:
<h2>√2,√8</h2><h2>√2,√4×2</h2><h2>√2,√2×2×2</h2><h2>√2,√2×2 2</h2><h2>√2,2√4 answer</h2>
