Answer: The probability that the avg. salary of the 100 players exceeded $1 million is approximately 1.
Explanation:
Step 1: Estimate the standard error. Standard error can be calcualted by dividing the standard deviation by the square root of the sample size:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1117a/1117af7d399e20700359269d183f2d71b84659dd" alt="SE=\frac{0.8}{\sqrt{100}}=\frac{0.8}{10} = 0.08"
So, Standard Error is 0.08 million or $80,000.
Step 2: Next, estimate the mean is how many standard errors below the population mean $1 million.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a3c0/9a3c02988514733eacb28747f4cb19f772793be0" alt="\frac{1 - 1.5}{0.08}"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bc030/bc030179172c00378813b9e7d7e72ca88a2d9e54" alt="=-6.250"
-6.250 means that $1 million is siz standard errors away from the mean. Since, the value is too far from the bell-shaped normal distribution curve that nearly 100% of the values are greater than it.
Therefore, we can say that because 100% values are greater than it, probability that the avg. salary of the 100 players exceeded $1 million is approximately 1.
Segment XZ and segment ZX
The slope is the constant rate of change. In this case, the number is being multiplied by 3 each time
The slope is 3
“x represents number of chocolate truffles sold each day”
Represents amount of chocolate truffles sold per day
Answer:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3d37a/3d37af02eb3c430462a5a02cdc136b98c5608803" alt="35\ ways"
Step-by-step explanation:
we know that
<u><em>Combinations</em></u> are a way to calculate the total outcomes of an event where order of the outcomes does not matter.
To calculate combinations, we will use the formula
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e6a81/e6a814474150e2f9e6f39a4b80527ddb6dc124b5" alt="C(n,r)=\frac{n!}{r!(n-r)!}"
where
n represents the total number of items
r represents the number of items being chosen at a time.
In this problem
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/022c2/022c2d48f632e1f26e81b939a9b8d5e2dbcbf07d" alt="n=7\\r=3"
substitute
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52001/52001a1591b6d0bdbb900f3350da5d6c4db54db0" alt="C(7,3)=\frac{7!}{3!(7-3)!}\\\\C(7,3)=\frac{7!}{3!(4)!}"
simplify
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1d05/c1d05f32a880f35711e97b895f2ff7db12a0d8be" alt="C(7,3)=\frac{(7)(6)(5)4!}{3!(4)!}"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f880/8f88056d76209a07f620741f13408200f196ebcf" alt="C(7,3)=\frac{(7)(6)(5)}{3!}"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bbd13/bbd13a41e3f5ef3b4189bc2949961776e2f53857" alt="C(7,3)=\frac{(7)(6)(5)}{(3)(2)(1)}"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6f1a9/6f1a9207b149033a4cbde01aaf187b4b0f899b23" alt="C(7,3)=35\ ways"
If a number is positive, Leila's theory that 75% of a number will always be greater than 50% of another number is <em>true</em>;<em> </em>however, if both numbers are negative, or if the number of which she finds 50% is much greater than the number of which she finds 75%, Leila's theory could be incorrect.
This inequality shows that Leila is correct:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98ef8/98ef86316dbdd2586f2532bb52dda68fc55a978c" alt="100(0.75) \geq 50(0.50)"
(which simplifies to
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2cc76/2cc766f427e31e1045de92839c8783bb17bc5101" alt="75 \geq 25"
)
This inequality shows that Leila is incorrect:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64329/64329abd4f66976f7153f5b7ae1b3f98ed8aeec2" alt="50(0.75) \geq 100(0.50)"
(which simplifies to
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9c070/9c070e7c76dc6fee3bba1c2e9db1273f11c7b8d6" alt="37.5 \geq 50"
)
Hope this helps!