Looking at this in terms of sets, let's call O the set of all owls, and F the set of all things that can fly. What this original statement is saying every animal that's a member of the set of all owls is also a member of the set of all things that can fly, or in other words, O⊂F (O is a subset of F). Negating this tells us that, while there's <em>at least one</em> element of O that also belongs to F, O is not contained entirely in F (O⊆F, in notation), so a good negation or our original statement might be:
<em>Not all owls can fly.</em>
Answer:
$500
Step-by-step explanation:
She pick in $400, she took that $400 out so she would then have $0
She then inserted $500 back in with no money previously
Answer:
c - (4, ∞)
Step-by-step explanation:
answer on edg
Answer:
I would say C
Step-by-step explanation:
because I think that 15 is the slope and the 35 is the y intercept. I could be wrong but that would be my guess
