In the figure angle B= angle D. AB=40, AC=35, BC=25, CE=28. Find ED to the nearest whole number. ( see image )
1 answer:
You might be interested in
Answer:
For this case we want to conduct a test in order to see if the proportion of Clemson students who eat breakfast is different from 0.44 (alternative hypothesis). And the complement would represent the null hypothesis, and the system of hypothesis for this case are:
Null Hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
Step-by-step explanation:
Previous concepts
A hypothesis is defined as "a speculation or theory based on insufficient evidence that lends itself to further testing and experimentation. With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false".
The null hypothesis is defined as "a hypothesis that says there is no statistical significance between the two variables in the hypothesis. It is the hypothesis that the researcher is trying to disprove".
The alternative hypothesis is "just the inverse, or opposite, of the null hypothesis. It is the hypothesis that researcher is trying to prove".
Solution to the problem
For this case we want to conduct a test in order to see if the proportion of Clemson students who eat breakfast is different from 0.44 (alternative hypothesis). And the complement would represent the null hypothesis, and the system of hypothesis for this case are:
Null Hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
Answer:
5) 30.0m
6) 34.0mi
7) 11.0ft
8) 17.0 km
(all rounded off to the nearest tenth)
Step-by-step explanation:
Please see attached pictures for the full solution.
Note that 6% converted to a decimal number is 6/100=0.06. Also note that 6% of a certain quantity x is 0.06x.
Here is how much the worker earned each year:
In the year 1985 the worker earned <span>$10,500.
</span>In the year 1986 the worker earned $10,500 + 0.06($10,500). Factorizing $10,500, we can write this sum as:
$10,500(1+0.06).
In the year 1987 the worker earned
$10,500(1+0.06) + 0.06[$10,500(1+0.06)].
Now we can factorize $10,500(1+0.06) and write the earnings as:
$10,500(1+0.06) [1+0.06]=
.
Similarly we can check that in the year 1987 the worker earned
, which makes the pattern clear.
We can count that from the year 1985 to 1987 we had 2+1 salaries, so from 1985 to 2010 there are 2010-1985+1=26 salaries. This means that the total paid salaries are:
.
Factorizing, we have
![=10,500[1+1.06+(1.06)^2+(1.06)^3+...+(1.06)^{26}]=10,500\cdot[1+1.06+(1.06)^2+(1.06)^3+...+(1.06)^{26}]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%3D10%2C500%5B1%2B1.06%2B%281.06%29%5E2%2B%281.06%29%5E3%2B...%2B%281.06%29%5E%7B26%7D%5D%3D10%2C500%5Ccdot%5B1%2B1.06%2B%281.06%29%5E2%2B%281.06%29%5E3%2B...%2B%281.06%29%5E%7B26%7D%5D)
We recognize the sum as the geometric sum with first term 1 and common ratio 1.06, applying the formula
(where a is the first term and r is the common ratio) we have:
.
Finally, multiplying 10,500 by 59.17 we have 621.285 ($).
The answer we found is very close to D. The difference can be explained by the accuracy of the values used in calculation, most important, in calculating
.
Answer: D
Here is how much the worker earned each year:
In the year 1985 the worker earned <span>$10,500.
</span>In the year 1986 the worker earned $10,500 + 0.06($10,500). Factorizing $10,500, we can write this sum as:
$10,500(1+0.06).
In the year 1987 the worker earned
$10,500(1+0.06) + 0.06[$10,500(1+0.06)].
Now we can factorize $10,500(1+0.06) and write the earnings as:
$10,500(1+0.06) [1+0.06]=
Similarly we can check that in the year 1987 the worker earned
We can count that from the year 1985 to 1987 we had 2+1 salaries, so from 1985 to 2010 there are 2010-1985+1=26 salaries. This means that the total paid salaries are:
Factorizing, we have
We recognize the sum as the geometric sum with first term 1 and common ratio 1.06, applying the formula
Finally, multiplying 10,500 by 59.17 we have 621.285 ($).
The answer we found is very close to D. The difference can be explained by the accuracy of the values used in calculation, most important, in calculating
Answer: D