Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Answer:
A
Step-by-step explanation:
Looking at the function, we have;
V(t) = 1,000(1.06)^t
Mathematically, the amount earned on an investment that offers a particular constant percentage return to a particular number of years can be written as;
V = I(1 + r)^t
where V is the value of the investment after some certain number of years
I is the initial amount invested
r is the constant percentage increase
and t is the number of years.
Let’s now re-write what we can deduce in the question.
This is;
V(t) = 1000(1 + 0.06)^t
Thus what this 0.06 represents is r which is the constant interest rate
Answer:
x = -2 y = -8
Step-by-step explanation:
13x - 6y = 22
x - y = 6
6(x-y) = 6*6
6x - 6y = 36
subtract both the equations
13x - 6x -6y + 6y = -14
7x = -14
x = -2
13*-2 -6y=22
-26 -6y=22
-6y = 48
y = -8
answer: x = -2 y = -8
Answer:
B
Step-by-step explanation:
The pattern is to add 4 each time. So 17+4 is 21, 21+4 is 25, and 25+4 is 29
The question wants the answer with a power in it.
