Hi Bre,
Since lines a and b are parallel, we know that in the image:
- ∡1 ⇔ ∡5
- ∡2 ⇔ ∡6
- ...
- ∡4 ⇔ ∡8
We're given the angle of ∡7, which is 114°. We can see that ∡7 + ∡8 will equal to 180° (since line b is a straight line) and since ∡8 ⇔ ∡4, we can deduct that ∡7 + ∡4 = 180°.
From here, it's just imputing the information and solving.
⇒ 114° + ∡4 = 180°
⇒ ∡4 = 180° - 114°
⇒ ∡4 = 66°
-Hope this helps!
1/2 / 4/5 = 1/2 *5/4 = 5/8
answer is 5/8 in.
To get this answer you would multiply 42 times 39%
Answer:
There is sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level
Null hypothesis ; H0 : p = 0.47
Alternative hypothesis : H1 : p ≠ 0.47
Step-by-step explanation:
percentage favoring construction of adjoining community = 47%
level = 0.05
To determine if the 0.05 confidence level is enough to support the major's claim we have to state the Null and alternative hypothesis
Null hypothesis ; H0 : p = 0.47
Alternative hypothesis : H1 : p ≠ 0.47
5) The relation between intensity and current appears linear for intensity of 300 or more (current = intensity/10). For intensity of 150, current is less than that linear relation would predict. This seems to support the notion that current will go to zero for zero intensity. Current might even be negative for zero intensity since the line through the points (300, 30) and (150, 10) will have a negative intercept (-10) when current is zero.
Usually, we expect no output from a power-translating device when there is no input, so we expect current = 0 when intensity = 0.
6) We have no reason to believe the linear relation will not continue to hold for values of intensity near those already shown. We expect the current to be 100 for in intensity of 1000.
8) Apparently, times were only measured for 1, 3, 6, 8, and 12 laps. The author of the graph did not want to extrapolate beyond the data collected--a reasonable choice.
