What is the missing reason in the proof ?
1 answer:
You might be interested in
⇒ Based on the given rules of "Fire-Water-Sponge," outcomes 1<span>, </span>5<span>, and </span>8 are outcomes where you lose.
<span>Therefore, </span><span>1,5, and 8</span><span> are the subset of outcomes where you lose, and we now can say that the statements "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where your friend wins" and "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where you do not win, and there is not a tie" accurately describe the subset.
</span>
Furthermore, because every subset outcome involves you losing, the statements "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where you win" and "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where there is a tie" do not accurately describe the subset.
The statements that accurately describe the given subset of the sample space are:
<span>The subset consists of all of the outcomes where your friend wins.
</span><span> </span>The subset consists of all of the outcomes where you do not win and there is not a tie.
<span>Therefore, </span><span>1,5, and 8</span><span> are the subset of outcomes where you lose, and we now can say that the statements "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where your friend wins" and "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where you do not win, and there is not a tie" accurately describe the subset.
</span>
Furthermore, because every subset outcome involves you losing, the statements "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where you win" and "The subset consists of all of the outcomes where there is a tie" do not accurately describe the subset.
</span><span>