Answer:
4
Step-by-step explanation:
To more easily graph this, convert it to slope-intercept form (y = mx + b, where m is the slope and b is the y-intercept):
x - y = 1
-y = -x + 1
y = x - 1
The slope is 1 and the y-intercept is -1. To graph this, plot the point (0, -1) and count 1 unit down and 1 unit to the right. Do this once more, connect the points, and you have your line.
Hope this helps.
I think it is a I am not sure though
Answer:
Answer:
1). Option (A)
2). Option (A)
Step-by-step explanation:
1). A worker bee has the mass = 0.00011 kg
In scientific notation we can convert the mass of bee as,
0.00011 =
=
Since 1.1 ≈ 1,
Therefore, 1.1 × 10⁻⁴ ≈ 1 × 10⁻⁴ kg
Option (A) is the answer.
2). An African elephant has a mass = 8139 kg
In scientific notation,
8139 = 8.139 × 10³
Since, 8.139 ≈ 8
Therefore, 8139 kg = 8.139 × 10³ kg
Option (A) is the answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hope this helps! ;)
Answer: "greater than" for each of the 4 dropdown menus
======================================================
Explanation:
Divide each value in the table by 40
You should get:
- Horse = 15/40 = 0.375
- Cow = 12/40 = 0.300
- Sheep = 14/40 = 0.350
- Pig = 19/40 = 0.475
Those decimal results are the experimental (ie empirical) probabilities. Theoretically, we should get 1/4 = 0.250 for each sticker type assuming each sticker is likely to be chosen. As you can see, each decimal value shown above is larger than the theoretical target of 0.250, so each answer is "greater than"
-----------
Here's another way to see why this is:
If we had 40 stickers total, and each animal has the same number of stickers, then we should have 40/4 = 10 stickers per animal type. But the table shows each frequency is above 10. So that must directly mean the empirical probability of picking any animal is greater than the theoretical probability.
