Answer:
so x = 5 is not true statement
Step-by-step explanation:
well to prove x = 5 you need to get get alone or solve for x
3x = 10-5 --> 3x = 5
now you need to get x alone do this by dividing 3 by both sides
3x = 5 --> x = 5/3
x = 1.6
Answer:
10
Step-by-step explanation:
Fatima wrote down 3 square numbers
since we don't know the three square we will represent it by any variable (X)
3x=30
so you divide both sides by 3
so we have 3x/3=30/3=10
therefore the answer is 10
This problem, as written, requires a bit of guessing regarding your intentions. My interpretation is that you want to do this division:
2
----------
1 6/7
If that's correct, here's what to do: rewrite 1 6/7 as 13/7 (an improper fraction).
Then divide:
2
-------- This is equivalent to the multiplication (2/1)(7/13) = 14/13 (answer)
13/7
In case A, as the error would be a difference of 1, the assumption could be mantained, but in case B the difference will be bigger, showing that the ratio is not 3:1 but 4:1.
<h3><u>Ratios</u></h3>
Given that a preliminary study was carried out to test the hypothesis that the ratio of white to dark herons on the island was 3:1, but A) a small census found 16 white morphs and 4 dark, to determine if the assumption of a 3 :1 ratio could be rejected, and B) to determine the same question if the census were larger with 160 white morphs and 40 dark, the following calculations must be made:
A)
- 3 + 1 = 4
- 16 + 4 = 20
- 4 = 20
- 3 = X
- 60 / 4 = X
- 15 = X
- Therefore, as the error would be a difference of 1, the assumption could be mantained.
B)
- 3 + 1 = 4
- 160 + 40 = 200
- 150 = 3:1
- In this case, the difference will be bigger, showing that the ratio is not 3:1 but 4:1.
Learn more about ratios in brainly.com/question/1504221
<h2>The opposite of an opposite of a integer is the original integer.</h2>
