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%.
We factor the equation to get:
-(x-25)^2+361
In the form a(x-h)^2+k, the vertex is (h, k), so the vertex is (25, 361). This means that the studio makes the most profit from selling 25 memberships, and thus makes 361 dollars.
B. The x-intercepts are the values of x for which f(x) is 0. This equation can be factored as (-a+6)(a-44)=0, with solutions 6 and 44. Therefore, by selling either 6 memberships or 44 memberships, the studio breaks even, neither making nor losing money.
The domain is all x-values.
The range is all y-values.
Domain: 3, 5, -3, 2, 1
Range: 4, 7, 8, 0, 3
Best of Luck!
The answer is 7 because it goes 10th 100th and the thirty one is thousands
Answer:(9,2) I assume I don’t really understand the question
Step-by-step explanation:
