Answer: Choice B
There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0.
========================================================
Explanation:
The confidence interval is (-0.29, 0.09)
This is the same as writing -0.29 < p1-p1 < 0.09
The thing we're trying to estimate (p1-p2) is between -0.29 and 0.09
Because 0 is in this interval, it is possible that p1-p1 = 0 which leads to p1 = p2.
Therefore, it is possible that the population proportions are the same.
The question asks " is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportions", so the answer to this is "no, there isn't convincing evidence". We would need both endpoints of the confidence interval to either be positive together, or be negative together, for us to have convincing evidence that the population proportions are different.
Answer:
- vertical scaling by a factor of -4
- horizontal translation 5 units left
- vertical translation 11 units up
Step-by-step explanation:
We notice that the multiplier of the squared term in f(x) is 0.5; in g(x), it is -2, so is a factor of -4 times that in f(x).
If we scale f(x) by a factor of -4, we get ...
-4f(x) = -2(x -2)² -12
In order for the squared quantity to be x+3, we have to add 5 to the value that is squared in f(x). That is, x -2 must become x +3. We have to replace x with (x+5) to do that, so ...
(x+5) -2 = x +3
The replacement of x with x+5 amounts to a translation of 5 units to the left.
We note that the added constant after our scaling changes from +3 to -12. Instead, we want it to be -1, so we must add 11 to the scaled function. That translates it upward by 11 units.
The attached graph shows the scaled and translated function g(x):
g(x) = -4f(x +5) +11
Answer:
i think have fun
Step-by-step explanation:
84
6,600 pounds
2,000 multiply by 3.3 equals 6,600