B. A line with a positive slope slants

What is the y-intercept of this line? <br> A) b = -4<br> B) m = 2<br> C) b = 2 <br> D) m = 1/2

AveGali [126]

Step-by-step explanation:

it is a because the y-axis is intersected at -4

5 0

3 years ago

Find the sum of the following series. Round to the nearest hundredth if necessary.

max2010maxim [7]

Gtfbgyhfftgguhvgsskllmnnhj ccftgc Uu cast bkotrfvb hutch. Hurd

7 0

3 years ago

The country of Freedonia has decided to reduce its carbon dioxide emission by 3 5 %every year. This year the

Degger [83]

Answer:

Brainliest?

Step-by-step explanation:

The amount after t years 40 millions tons

Bit by bit clarification:

Given as :

The pace of abatement of carbon dioxide one another = 35%

The amount of carbon dioxide radiated for this present year = 40 million tons

Let the amount of carbon dioxide discharged after t year = A millions tons

Presently, According to address

The amount of carbon dioxide radiated after t year = The amount of carbon dioxide discharged for this present year ×

Or on the other hand, A millions tons = 40 millions tons ×

So,The amount after t years = A = 40 millions tons

Consequently The amount after t years 40 million

6 0

3 years ago

(Recall: 2.20 Ib. ~ 1 kg. ) Ib. ~ 14 kg.)

4vir4ik [10]

Since 2.20 lb is equal to 1 kg then 14 kg is equal to 30.8 lb

6 0

4 years ago

Consider the following proposed proof by contradiction that for all positive integers n, 3n > 2.

laila [671]

Answer:

The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.

Step-by-step explanation:

The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.

This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.

A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.

To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."

7 0

3 years ago