This is basically saying how much of the pizza did Tashia and Jay both ate, thus combining their portions together.
1/3 + 3/8 = fraction of pizza eaten
To add fractions, you must have a common denominator. Which is 24 in this case because 3*8 = 24.
So you multiply 1/3 with 8 and multiply 3/8 with 3.
1/3*8= 8/24
3/8*3= 9/24
Now you add the fractions.
8/24+9/24= 17/24. You add the numerator, the denominator stays the same.
17/24 of the pizza was eaten.
3 and 2 would be 122 since 3 and the 58° are a linear pair making them add up to 180. And 3 and 2 are vertical so they would be congruent.
4 would then have to be 38 since the three angles would have to measure up to 180.
And the 1 would have to be 36 with the same reasoning as before.
Disclamier (I might have done some math wrong since I did it in my head.)
Answer:
b. Hannah is likely to be incorrect because 9 is not contained in the interval.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
Hannah estimated per CI the difference between the average time that people spend outside in southern states and the average time people spend outside in northern states.
The CI is a method of estimation of population parameters that propose a range of possible values for them. The confidence level you use to construct the interval can be interpreted as, if you were to calculate 100 confidence interval, you'd expect that 99 of them will contain the true value of the parameter of interest.
In this example, the 99%CI resulted [0.4;8.0]hs
Meaning that with a 99% confidence level you'd expect the value of the difference between the average time people from southern states spend outside than the average time people from northern states spend outside is included in the interval [0.4;8.0]hs.
Now, she claims that people living in southern states spend 9 more hours outside than people living in northern states, symbolized μ₁ - μ₂ > 9
Keep in mind that if you were to test her claim, the resulting hypothesis test would be one-tailed
H₀: μ₁ - μ₂ ≤ 9
H₁: μ₁ - μ₂ > 9
And that the calculated Ci is tow-tailed, so it is not valid to use it to decide over the hypotheses pair. This said, considering that the calculated interval doesn't contain 9, it is most likely that Hannah's claim is incorrect.
I hope this helps!
Fairly straightforward question. She works 30 days and is late 80% or 0.8
We can model our equation
Num days late = late percentage * num working days
Basically fine portion of working days that she was late.
Num days late = 0.8 * 30=24
So Deborah was late 24 out of 30 working days. Would appreciate a brainliest
In expanded form, the number would look like this:
300,000,000 + 10,000,000 + 700,000 + 60,000 + 3,000 + 100 + 40 + 6
When you add the value of all of these digits, it'll get you the number: 310,763,146. Adding all of these values up and getting the number you originally started with is a great method of making sure you got the right answer.
