Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
The answer is .50
Answer: First of all, we will add the options.
A. Yes, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
B. Yes, because the regression equation is based on a random sample.
C. Yes, because the association between length and weight is positive.
D. No, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
E. No, because there may not be any 3-inch fish of this species in the pond.
The correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation: It would not be appropriate to use the model to predict the weight of species that is 3 inches long because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
As we can see from the question, the model only accounts for species that are within the range of 0.75 to 1.35 inches in length, and species smaller or larger than that length have not been taken into consideration. Therefore the model can not be used to predict the weights of fishes not with the range accounted for.
Answer:
6. 550
7. 70
Step-by-step explanation:
6. 16+28 = 44, 44*25 = 1100 divided by 2 = 550
7. 2.5+3+5.5 = 11, 11+3 = 14, 14*10 = 140 divided by 2 = 70
If Ike does not want more than 20 pounds in his backpack, this means he wants less than or equal to 20 pounds in his backpack. Because each paper costs 1/3 pound, this can be used as the rate of change and we can set up the following inequality:
1/3x < 20
To solve this inequality, we should divide both sides of the equation by 1/3.
x < 60
Because this inequality means that x is less than or equal to 60, the answer is that Ike can carry 60 papers in his backpack.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
I recommend trying this it is real tutors that explain to you on how to do it it's free
