Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Starting from the y-intercept of ![\displaystyle [0, -2],](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cdisplaystyle%20%5B0%2C%20-2%5D%2C)
you do 
by either moving four blocks <em>south</em><em> </em>over one block <em>west</em><em> </em>or four blocks <em>north</em><em> </em>over one block<em> east</em><em> </em>[<em>west</em> and <em>south</em> are negatives]. Next, we have to determine the types of inequality symbols that are suitable for this graph, which will be <em>less</em><em> </em><em>than</em><em> </em>and <em>greater</em><em> </em><em>than</em><em> </em>since this is a <em>dashed</em><em> </em><em>line</em><em> </em>graph. We then use the zero-interval test [test point (0, 0)] to ensure whether we shade the opposite portion [portion that does not contain the origin] or the portion that DOES contain the origin. At this step, we must verify the inequalities as false or true:
<em>Greater</em><em> </em><em>than</em>
![\displaystyle 0 > 4[0] - 2 → 0 > -2](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cdisplaystyle%200%20%3E%204%5B0%5D%20-%202%20%E2%86%92%200%20%3E%20-2)
☑
<em>Less</em><em> </em><em>than</em><em> </em>
![\displaystyle 0 < 4[0] - 2 → 0 ≮ -2](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cdisplaystyle%200%20%3C%204%5B0%5D%20-%202%20%E2%86%92%200%20%E2%89%AE%20-2)
This graph is shaded in the portion of the origin, so you would choose the <em>greater</em><em> </em><em>than</em><em> </em>inequality symbol to get this inequality:
I am joyous to assist you anytime.
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
The slope-intercept form of the equation of a line:
m - slope
b - y-intercept → (0, b)
The point-slope form of the equation of a line:
m - slope
(x₁, y₁) - point
We have the equation of a line:
and the point (0, 2) → b = 2.
Substitute:
Answer:
The answer to the question is;
Yes, it is very significant as the number of of observed vaccinated children is below the number of actually vaccinated children by 78.
Step-by-step explanation:
The result of the survey of more than 13,000 children indicate that only 89.4 % had actually been and the P-value indicate that the chance of having a sample proportion of 89.4 % vaccinated is 1.1 %.
P is low at 0.011 for which however the proportion of those vaccinated is between 0.889 and 0.899 using a 95% confidence interval, whereby the decrease from 90 % believed to 89.9 % is small, albeit it depends on the size of the population.
At 89.4 %, in a sample of 13,000, the number of children expected to have been vaccinated but were missed is equal to 90 - 89.4 = 0.6 % = 0.006
Therefore the children missed = 78 children which is significant.
