the equilibrium point, is when Demand = Supply, namely, when the amount of "Q"uantity demanded by customers is the same as the Quantity supplied by vendors.
That occurs when both of these equations are equal to each other.
let's do away with the denominators, by multiplying both sides by the LCD of all fractions, in this case, 12.
![\bf \stackrel{\textit{Supply}}{-\cfrac{3}{4}Q+35}~~=~~\stackrel{\textit{Demand}}{\cfrac{2}{3}Q+1}\implies \stackrel{\textit{multiplying by 12}}{12\left( -\cfrac{3}{4}Q+35 \right)=12\left( \cfrac{2}{3}Q+1 \right)} \\\\\\ -9Q+420=8Q+12\implies 408=17Q\implies \cfrac{408}{17}=Q\implies \boxed{24=Q} \\\\\\ \stackrel{\textit{using the found Q in the Demand equation}}{P=\cfrac{2}{3}(24)+1}\implies P=16+1\implies \boxed{P=17} \\\\[-0.35em] \rule{34em}{0.25pt}\\\\ ~\hfill \stackrel{Equilibrium}{(24,17)}~\hfill](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cbf%20%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7BSupply%7D%7D%7B-%5Ccfrac%7B3%7D%7B4%7DQ%2B35%7D~~%3D~~%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7BDemand%7D%7D%7B%5Ccfrac%7B2%7D%7B3%7DQ%2B1%7D%5Cimplies%20%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7Bmultiplying%20by%2012%7D%7D%7B12%5Cleft%28%20-%5Ccfrac%7B3%7D%7B4%7DQ%2B35%20%5Cright%29%3D12%5Cleft%28%20%5Ccfrac%7B2%7D%7B3%7DQ%2B1%20%5Cright%29%7D%20%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%20-9Q%2B420%3D8Q%2B12%5Cimplies%20408%3D17Q%5Cimplies%20%5Ccfrac%7B408%7D%7B17%7D%3DQ%5Cimplies%20%5Cboxed%7B24%3DQ%7D%20%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%20%5Cstackrel%7B%5Ctextit%7Busing%20the%20found%20Q%20in%20the%20Demand%20equation%7D%7D%7BP%3D%5Ccfrac%7B2%7D%7B3%7D%2824%29%2B1%7D%5Cimplies%20P%3D16%2B1%5Cimplies%20%5Cboxed%7BP%3D17%7D%20%5C%5C%5C%5C%5B-0.35em%5D%20%5Crule%7B34em%7D%7B0.25pt%7D%5C%5C%5C%5C%20~%5Chfill%20%5Cstackrel%7BEquilibrium%7D%7B%2824%2C17%29%7D~%5Chfill)
Answer:2/20 =
2 ÷ 20 =
0.1 =
0.1 × 100/100 =
0.1 × 100% =
Step-by-step explanation:
google
Answer:
74%
Step-by-step explanation:
37/50= 0.74x100= 74%
Answer:the third one shows parallel lines cut by a transversal
Step-by-step explanation:
9514 1404 393
Answer:
A- Cai are used an invalid reason to justify the congruence of a pair of sides or angles.
Step-by-step explanation:
In step 4, Cai referred to the angles as "alternate interior." In fact, they are "corresponding." The reason used to justify congruence of the angles was invalid.
