All categories

2 years ago

The perimeter of the rectangle below is 124 units. Find the length of side cd

Mathematics

1 answer:

Soloha48 [4]2 years ago

4 0

Answer:

CD = 38

Step-by-step explanation:

Since AB = 3x + 2, CD = 3x + 2

To solve for the length of CD, we'll need to solve for x first by using the perimeter formula

Solving for x...

$(3x+2)+(3x+2)+2x+2x=124$

$3x + 3x + 2x + 2x = 120$

$10x=120$

$x=\frac{120}{10}$

$x=12$

Now that we know what x equals, plug in x into the expression of side CD

CD = 3x + 2

CD = 3(12) + 2

CD = 36 + 2

CD = 38

Therefore, the length of side CD = 38

-------------------------------------------------------

Check:

AB = CD | BC = DA

38 + 38 for AB and CD

BC + DA = 2x + 2x

BC + DA = 2(12) + 2(12)

BC + DA = 24 + 24

BC + DA = 48

38 + 38 + 48 = perimeter

perimeter = 124

You might be interested in

Math help please! Thanks so much!

suter [353]

According do what i came up with. after 3 hours train (A) should be 150 miles out towards Smithville, while Train (B) will be 180 miles out towards Westtown. Its best to graph this out to better understand. so 330/2 = 165, so thats your half way point. use this to determine how far train (A) is from SV compared to train (B)s distance to WT. After 3 hours you can see at 180 miles out Train (B) will be crossing paths with Train (A) at 150 miles. So the answer would be 3 hours

6 0

3 years ago

| If f(x) = (3x – 1, find f(2) and f(-2)

Brums [2.3K]

Answer:

f(2)=5, f(-2)=-7

Step-by-step explanation:

Step 1 : f(2)=3(x)-1

f(2)=5

Step 2 : f(-2)=3(x)-1

f(-2)=-7

6 0

3 years ago

A recent article in a university newspaper claimed that the proportion of students who commute more than miles to school is no m

Naddika [18.5K]

Answer:

The null hypothesis is $H_0: p \leq x$ , in which x is the proportion tested.

The alternative hypothesis is $H_1: p > x$

Step-by-step explanation:

A recent article in a university newspaper claimed that the proportion of students who commute more than miles to school is no more than x.

This means that at the null hypothesis, we test if the proportion is of at most x, that is:

$H_0: p \leq x$

Suppose that we suspect otherwise and carry out a hypothesis test.

The opposite of at most x is more than x, so the alternative hypothesis is:

$H_1: p > x$

4 0

2 years ago

Please help. Question is in the picture

kumpel [21]

Number 4: line XZ; number 5: theory of congruent triangles.

4 0

3 years ago

A detective has interviewed four witnesses to a crime. From the stories of the witnesses the detective has concluded

SVETLANKA909090 [29]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Step 1:we should turn the “facts” into logical expressions.

Step 2:Assign variables

Our variables are: b (for butler), c (for cook), g (for gardener), h (for handyman)

Step 3 . Let the value of true indicate that the person is telling the truth. For example, b = T means the butler is telling the truth. Then we can translate the statements as follows:

Check attachment

Step 4

We know all of these must hold. So we really want to know when (b→c)∧¬(c∧g)∧¬(¬g∧¬h)∧(h → ¬c) is true.

Step 5

Behold, another truth table task! If you work out the truth table, you see that this statement is only true when:

Check attachment

Step 6

Therefore we can say the butler and cook are definitely lying, but we can not determine if the gardener or handyman are lying. However, there are four variables in this problem. Instead, we can do this with some straight reasoning. Notice that:

If the butler is telling the truth, then by (a) the cook is telling the truth.

If the cook is telling the truth, then by (b) the gardener is lying.

If the gardener is lying, then by (c) the handyman is telling the truth.

If the handyman is telling the truth, they by (d) the cook is lying.

This leads to a contradiction (the cook can not be both telling the truth and lying)! Therefore the butler and cook must be lying. What about the gardener and the handyman? We don’t have enough information to figure out if they are lying. Since the cook is lying, we can’t use (b) to come to any conclusions about the gardener. Even if we are able to conclude that the gardener is telling the truth, we can’t use (c) to come to any conclusions about the handyman.

4 0

3 years ago