Let
x--------------> the number of slices eating by Consuela and her <span>three friends
we know that
[total slices]=8*2=16 slices
</span><span>[slices of pizza for her older brother]=2
x=16-2=14 slides
</span><span>Consuela and her friends share the rest of the pizza, each eating the same number of slices---------> 14/4= 3.5 slides of pizza each (</span><span>this part is not necessary, but it is shown in a didactic way)
</span><span>
the question is
</span><span>What fraction of the 2 pizzas is left over?
</span>[slices of pizza for her older brother]/[total slices]=2/16=1/8
<span>
the answer is (1/8)
</span>
You can see that the term 
appears in both equations. In this cases, we can leverage this peculiarity and subtract the two equations to get rid of the repeated term. So, if we subtract the first equation from the second, we have
Now that we know the value of 
, we can substitute in any of the equation to deduce the value of 
: if we use the first equation, for example, we have
Answer:
1000000
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
For the reasons mentioned in the explanation section, it is indeed a weak generalization:
Step-by-step explanation:
- No, there is not enough data provided on certain subjects' age, socioeconomic status, etc. that may have influenced the investing decision.
- No, the survey isn't random, the study is irregular because each has a fair probability of expressing their true beliefs, here in this query it's written they've been told individuals are given actual medication, which may have contributed to the Hawthorne studies giving incorrect outcomes.
- No, the amount isn't sufficient mostly on the premise of 28 subject areas with be provided oxytocin, and therefore only one test being performed should we not be able to determine the results to implement for certain persons including billions of populace, it would be a hurried generalization.
