Answer:
There is no evidence to said that the technique performs differently than the traditional method.
Step-by-step explanation:
First, we need to write the null and alternative hypothesis as:
H0: x = 11.7
H1: x ≠ 11.7
Where x is the population mean for the new method.
Taking into account that the population distribution is approximately normal and the standard deviation of the population is unknown, we can calculated the statistic as:

Where t follows a distribution t-student with n-1 degrees of freedom.
So, replacing x' by the mean of the sample, s by the standard deviation of the sample and n by the size of the sample, we get:

Then, we can find the critical points as:
P(t<t1) = 0.025
P(t<t2) = 0.975
So, with 22 degrees of freedom, the critical point t1 and t2 are equal to -2.07 and 2.07 respectively.
Since 1.37 is between the critical points, we can't reject H0. it means that there is no evidence to said that the technique performs differently than the traditional method.
To find the area you multiply l x w so, to find the sides you do the opposite, sq root of 24,200 (we can use the square root because we know it is a square and all sides are equal)=155.563492. This is only the length of one side. 155.563492*4=622.253968 which is a rational number.
The perimeter is a rational number.
Answer:
10
Step-by-step explanation:
5x2
6.299 or 6.3 depending on how it wants you to round
16cm / 2.54 cm per in = 6.3 inches
Y = 2x-3
The second line will have its Y-Intercept at -3 and its slope will be up 2 and over 1 which will allow it to go through (4,5) and the line will be parallel to Y = 2x+2