357 is your answer because all you do is solve the problem =
Answer
I The Turner family spent at least $100 each week.
A) I only
Step by step explanation
By looking at the graph. We can interpret the following information.
1st week = $145
2nd week = $105
3rd week = $125
4th week = $200
5th week = $150
From the above information.
The Turner family spent at least $100 each week.
The other statements are false.
Therefore, the answer A) I only
Thank you. :)
Answer:
z = 7
Step-by-step explanation:
4z - 8 = 20
Add 8 to each side
4z - 8+8 = 20+8
4z = 28
Divide each side by 4
4z/4 = 28/4
z = 7
The volume, surface area and the ratios of the SA to volume will be as follows:
Volume=πr²h
Area=2πr²+πdh
Ratio of SA to volume=Area/volume
π=3.14
Thus using the above formula:
1.
a]
Radius: 3 inches
Height: 2 inches
Volume=πr²h
volume=π×3²×2=56.52 in³
b]
Area=2πr²+πdh
2×π×3²+π×2×3×2
=56.55+37.68
=94.23 in²
c]
Ratio=area/volume
=94.23/56.52
=1.6672
1.
Radius: 2 inches
Height: 9 inches
a]
V=πr²h
V=3.14*2^2*9
V=113.04 in³
b]
Area=2πr²+πdh
=2*3.14*2^2+3.14*2*2*9
=25.12+113.04
=138.16 in²
c]
Ratio=area/volume
=138.16/113.04
=11/9
3.
Diameter=4 inches
Height= 9 inches
a]
V=πr²h
V=3.14×2²×9
V=113.04
b]
Area=2πr²+πdh
=2*3.14*2^2+3.14*4*9
=25.12+113.04
=138.16 in²
c]
Ratio=area/volume
=138.16/113.04
=11/9
4]
Diameter: 6 inches
Height: 4 inches
a]
Volume=πr²h
=3.14×3²×4
=113.04 in³
b]
Area=2πr²+πdh
=2×3.14×3²+3.14×6×4
=56.52+75.36
=131.88 in²
c] Ratio
131.88/113.04
=7/6
1. For the surface area to volume to be small it means that the area is smaller than the volume, for surface area to volume be larger it means that the surface area is larger than the volume. It is more economical for the surface area to volume to be small because it will mean that small amount of materials make cans with large volume. This means cost of production is cheaper.
2. To evaluate this process let's use one of the dimensions:
Radius: 3 inches
Height: 2 inches:
i. add radius and height:
3+2=5 inches
ii. Multiply radius and height:
3×2=6
iii. Dividing the result from step 1 by the result in step 2:
5/6
iv. Multiply the result from step 3 by 2:
5/6×6
=5
This result does not seem to add up to the result in our earlier ratio. Thus we conclude that Khianna was wrong. This method can't work with 3-D figures.
That’s the answer if you multiply .
