Answer:
We need a sample size of 564.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a sample with a number n of people surveyed with a probability of a success of 
, and a confidence level of 
, we have the following confidence interval of proportions.
In which
z is the zscore that has a pvalue of 
.
For this problem, we have that:
The margin of error is:
95% confidence level
So 
, z is the value of Z that has a pvalue of 
, so 
.
Based upon a 95% confidence interval with a desired margin of error of .04, determine a sample size for restaurants that earn less than $50,000 last year.
We need a sample size of n
n is found when 
So
Rounding up
We need a sample size of 564.
Answer:
C. Both Set A and Set B
Step-by-step explanation:
because for any domain ,you will get only one range value ,
but ,there are two range values for 2 in set c , so this is not a function
Answer:
61%
Step-by-step explanation:
We can see that out of all the people that were surveyed, 54% were 10th graders. Since 33% out of all the ones surveyed were 10th graders that chose robotics, the fraction would be 33/54 which is 0.611.
This is 61% approx.
Answer: 
Step-by-step explanation:
The formula for area of a triangle is 
Now we have to isolate for w.
First multiply by the 2 which is the reciprocal of 1/2 to cancel it out.
Now divide by h to isolate w.
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
