All categories

2 years ago

6.7 x 2.5 2 x 6 = 2 x 0.7 = 1 11 0.5 x 6 = 0.5 x 0.7 =

Mathematics

2 answers:

Mademuasel [1]2 years ago

8 0

Answer:

6.7

x 2.5

2 x 6 =53

Step-by-step explanation:

Mariulka [41]2 years ago

6 0

Answer:

1. 16.75

2. 12

3. 1.4

4. 1

5. 11

6. 3

7. 0.35

You might be interested in

Someone Please Help Quickly! Its an Easy Question

Paul [167]

Answer:

$y=\frac{2}{3}x-6$

Step-by-step explanation:

Use the slope-intercept form:

$y=mx+b$

m is the slope and b is the y-intercept. Looking at the graph, you can find the y-intercept. The y-intercept is the point where x equals 0:

$b=-6$

$y-intercept=(0,-6)$

To find the slope, take any two points from the line:

$(6,-2)(3,-4)$

Use the slope formula for when you have two points:

$\frac{y_{2}-y_{1}}{x_{2}-x_{1}}=\frac{rise}{run}$

The rise over run is the change in the y-axis over the change of the x-axis. Insert the appropriate values:

$(6(x_{1}),-2(y_{1})\\(3(x_{2}),-4(y_{2})$

$\frac{-4-(-2)}{3-6}$

Simplify parentheses (two negatives makes a positive):

$\frac{-4+2}{3-6}$

$\frac{-2}{-3}$

Simplify (two negatives make a positive):

$m=\frac{2}{3}$

The slope is $\frac{2}{3}$ and the y-intercept is $-6$ . Insert these into the equation:

$y=\frac{2}{3}x-6$

Finito.

7 0

3 years ago

If x varies directly as y, and<br> X = 24 when y= 21, Find x when<br> Y=6

Ne4ueva [31]

Answer:

x = 48/7

Step-by-step explanation:

There's two good ways to do this problem.

Option 1:

Translate "x varies directly as y" into the equation y=kx

Then you have to find k. After you "reset" your y=kx equation, fill in k and then solve for x. See image.

Option 2:

Translate "varies directly" into a proportion, which is two fractions equal to each other:

x/y = x/y

Fill in the three numbers given and cross multiply and solve to find the fourth number. See image.

7 0

1 year ago

The table below shows some inputs and outputs of the invertible function f with domain all real numbers.

Ratling [72]

Answer:

${f}^{ - 1} (f(93)) = 93$

$f(f(7)) = - 15$

Step-by-step explanation:

A function and its inverse has the following properties

${f}^{ - 1} (f(x)) = x$

This implies that;

${f}^{ - 1} (f(93)) = 93$

From the table,

$f(7) = - 6$

This means that:

$f(f(7)) = f( - 6)$

$f(f(7)) = - 15$

Note that: f(7) means the value of f(x) when x=7.

From the table f(x)=-6 when x=7.

That is why f(7)=-6.

5 0

3 years ago

a rectangular prism has base edge lengths of 6" and 8". The base edge lengths of a right rectangular prism are 8" and 6". The ba

FromTheMoon [43]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

The heights of neither the rectangular prism nor the triangular prism are given, so we don't know the volume of either.

If h is the height of the rectangular prism, then its volume is

6×8×h = 48

if the height of the triangular prism is h/2, then its volume is

(1/2)×24×8×(h/2) = 48

So we know the volumes are the same -- but we don't know what that volume is.

8 0

3 years ago

Will improving customer service result in higher stock prices for the companies providing the better service? "When a company’s

Orlov [11]

Question:

Company 2007 Score 2008 Score

Rite Aid 73 76

Expedia 75 77

J.C. Penney 77 78

a. For Rite Aid, is the increase in the satisfaction score from 2007 to 2008 statistically significant? Use α= .05. What can you conclude?

b. Can you conclude that the 2008 score for Rite Aid is above the national average of 75.7? Use α= .05.

c. For Expedia, is the increase from 2007 to 2008 statistically significant? Use α= .05.

d. When conducting a hypothesis test with the values given for the standard deviation,

sample size, and α, how large must the increase from 2007 to 2008 be for it to be statistically significant?

e. Use the result of part (d) to state whether the increase for J.C. Penney from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant.

Answer:

a. There is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the increase in satisfaction score for Rite Aid from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant

b. There is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the 2008 Rite Aid score, is above the national average of 75.7

c. The statistical evidence support the claim of a significant increase from 2007 to 2008

d. 1.802 and above is significant

e. The increase of J. C. Penney from 2007 is not statistically significant.

Step-by-step explanation:

Here we have

n = 60

σ = 6

μ₁ = 73

μ₂ = 76

We put H₀ : μ₁ ≥ μ₂ and

Hₐ : μ₁ < μ₂

From which we have;

$z=\frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}} = \frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}}}$

Plugging in the values we have

$z = \frac{(73-76)}{\sqrt{\frac{2\times 6^{2} }{60_{}}}}} = -2.7386$

The probability, P from z function computation gives;

P(Z < -2.7386) = 0.0031

Where we have P < α, we reject the null hypothesis meaning that there is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the increase in satisfaction score for Rite Aid from 2007 to 2008 is statistically significant

b. To test here, we have

H₀ : μ ≤ 75.7

Hₐ : μ > 75.7

The test statistic is given as follows;

$z=\frac{\bar{x}-\mu }{\frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{n}}} = \frac{76-75.7 }{\frac{6 }{\sqrt{60}}} = 0.3873$

Therefore, we have the probability, P given as the value for the function at z = 0.3873 that is we have;

P = P(Z > 0.3873) = P(Z < -0.3873) = 0.3493

Therefore, since P > α which is 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, that is there is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that the 2008 Rite Aid score, is above the national average of 75.7

c. Here we put

Null hypothesis H₀ : μ₁ ≥ μ₂

Alternative hypothesis Hₐ : μ₁ < μ₂

The test statistic is given by the following equation;

$z=\frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}} = \frac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})}{\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}}}$

Plugging in the values we have

$z = \frac{(75-77)}{\sqrt{\frac{2\times 6^{2} }{60_{}}}}} = -1.8257$

The probability, P from z function computation gives;

P(Z < -1.8257) = 0.03394

The statistical evidence support the claim of a significant increase

d. For statistical significance at 0.05 significant level, we have z = -1.644854

Therefore, from;

$z=\frac{(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}})-(\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}-\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}}$ . we have;

$z \times \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}+\frac{\sigma _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}} + (\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{} ={(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}})$

Which gives

${(\bar{x_{1}}-\bar{x_{2}}) = z \times \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma_{}^{2} }{n_{}}}} + (\mu_{1}-\mu _{2} )}{} = -1.644854 \times \sqrt{\frac{2\times 6_{}^{2} }{60_{}}}} + 0 = -1.802$

Therefore an increase of 1.802 and above is significant

e. Based on the result of part d. we have for J.C. Penney from 2007 to 2008 an increase of 1 which is less than 1.802 at 5% significant level, is not significant.

5 0

3 years ago