We know that
in the first triangle
the ratio of the legs are
4.5/1.5-----> 3
then
case <span>A) 6 m and 2 m ------> ratio=6/3----> 3
so
</span><span>the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
</span>case B) 8 m and 5 m ------> ratio=8/5---->1.6
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case C) 7 m and 3.5 mm ------> ratio=7/3.5---->2
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case D) 10 m and 2.5 m ------> ratio=10/2.5---->4
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m ------> ratio=11.25/3.75---->3
so
the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
the answer is
A) 6 m and 2 m
E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m
Answer:
The statement is correct
see the explanation
Step-by-step explanation:
we know that
The equation of a exponential growth function is equal to
where
y is the area covered by the plant in percentage
x is the time in years since 2000
r is the rate of change
a is the initial value
In this problem we have
substitute the values
In the year 2005
substitute the value of x in the exponential function
48.6% is about 50%
therefore
The statement is correct
Answer:
With what? I don't see the question.....
We are given a graph for the height of the ball with respect to horizontal distnace x of the ball from Julie.
From the graph, we can see the position of Julie is at (0,0). And starting height of the ball when thrown is 6 feet.
Then it moved to the maximum height of 14 feet. And hit to the ground when it has position on x-axis is 3.5 feet.
<em>Because we can see the parabola is crossing x-axis at 3.5 on the right.</em>
<em>That represents distance of the ball from Julie when it hit to the ground.</em>
<h3>Therefore, it has a horizontal distance of 3.5 feet from Julie.</h3>
