What is the y-intercept of the graph? A) (-2, 0) B) (2, 0) C) (0, -4) D) (0, 4)

Factorise 24e^2-28e-12

Helga [31]

Answer:

4(2e - 3)(3e + 1)

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

24e² - 28e - 12 ← factor out 4 from each term

= 4(6e² - 7e - 3) ← factor the quadratic

Consider the factors of the product of the e² term and the constant term which sum to give the coefficient of the e- term.

product = 6 × - 3 = - 18 and sum = - 7

The factors are - 9 and + 2

Use these factors to split the e- term

6e² - 9e + 2e - 3 ( factor the first/second and third/fourth terms )

= 3e(2e - 3) + 1 (2e - 3) ← factor out (2e - 3) from each term

= (2e - 3)(3e + 1)

Then

24e² - 28e - 12 = 4(2e - 3)(3e + 1) ← in factored form

8 0

3 years ago

B-1.6=(0.4) to the second power. SHOW WORK

olya-2409 [2.1K]

First, do 0.4 + 0.4. So, you can see what number you should get when you check your answer. For this, you should get 0.8

Then, do 0.8 + 1.6
After you add those 0.8 and 1.6, you should get your answer.
To check your answer, plug in your answer where B is and see if you get 0.8. I hope this helps! I did as much explaining as I could! If you need anymore help with this, just comment

4 0

3 years ago

How many lots of 10 second are there in 10 minutes

Vlad [161]

Answer:

60

Step-by-step explanation:

We can easily solve this by finding out how many 60 seconds are in 10 minutes, and then dividing by 10.

To do that, multiply 60 seconds by 10, since there are 60 seconds in each minute.

60*10=600. There are 600 seconds in ten minutes.

Now, divide by 10.

600/10=60

There are 60 intervals of 10 seconds in 10 minutes.

Hope this helps!

7 0

3 years ago

Which of the following statements are true about the diagram ? Please choose correct answers !!!!! Will mark Brianliest !!!!!!!!

Luden [163]

Answer:

It's none of the above

Step-by-step explanation:

GK is //

Both G & K are most definitely not the midpoints

G not the vertex of the right angle

5 0

2 years ago

A county environmental agency suspects that the fish in a particular polluted lake have elevated mercury levels. To confirm that

suter [353]

Answer:

a. The 95% confidence interval for the difference between means is (0.071, 0.389).

b. There is enough evidence to support the claim that the fish in this particular polluted lake have signficantly elevated mercury levels.

c. They agree. Both conclude that the levels of mercury are significnatly higher compared to a unpolluted lake.

In the case of the confidence interval, we reach this conclusion because the lower bound is greater than 0. This indicates that, with more than 95% confidence, we can tell that the difference in mercury levels is positive.

In the case of the hypothesis test, we conclude that because the P-value indicates there is a little chance we get that samples if there is no significant difference between the mercury levels. This indicates that the values of mercury in the polluted lake are significantly higher than the unpolluted lake.

Step-by-step explanation:

The table with the data is:

Sample 1 Sample 2

0.580 0.382

0.711 0.276

0.571 0.570

0.666 0.366

0.598

The mean and standard deviation for sample 1 are:

$M=\dfrac{1}{5}\sum_{i=1}^{5}(0.58+0.711+0.571+0.666+0.598)\\\\\\ M=\dfrac{3.126}{5}=0.63$

$s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{5}(x_i-M)^2}\\\\\\s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{4}\cdot [(0.58-(0.63))^2+...+(0.598-(0.63))^2]}\\\\\\ s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{4}\cdot [(0.002)+(0.007)+(0.003)+(0.002)+(0.001)]}\\\\\\ s=\sqrt{\dfrac{0.015}{4}}=\sqrt{0.0037}\\\\\\s=0.061$

The mean and standard deviation for sample 2 are:

$M=\dfrac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1}^{4}(0.382+0.276+0.57+0.366)\\\\\\ M=\dfrac{1.594}{4}=0.4$

$s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{4}(x_i-M)^2}\\\\\\s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{3}\cdot [(0.382-(0.4))^2+(0.276-(0.4))^2+(0.57-(0.4))^2+(0.366-(0.4))^2]}\\\\\\ s=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{3}\cdot [(0)+(0.015)+(0.029)+(0.001)]}\\\\\\ s=\sqrt{\dfrac{0.046}{3}}=\sqrt{0.015}\\\\\\s=0.123$

Confidence interval

We have to calculate a 95% confidence interval for the difference between means.

The sample 1, of size n1=5 has a mean of 0.63 and a standard deviation of 0.061.

The sample 2, of size n2=4 has a mean of 0.4 and a standard deviation of 0.123.

The difference between sample means is Md=0.23.

$M_d=M_1-M_2=0.63-0.4=0.23$

The estimated standard error of the difference between means is computed using the formula:

$s_{M_d}=\sqrt{\dfrac{\sigma_1^2}{n_1}+\dfrac{\sigma_2^2}{n_2}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{0.061^2}{5}+\dfrac{0.123^2}{4}}\\\\\\s_{M_d}=\sqrt{0.001+0.004}=\sqrt{0.005}=0.07$

The critical t-value for a 95% confidence interval is t=2.365.

The margin of error (MOE) can be calculated as:

$MOE=t\cdot s_{M_d}=2.365 \cdot 0.07=0.159$

Then, the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval are:

$LL=M_d-t \cdot s_{M_d} = 0.23-0.159=0.071\\\\UL=M_d+t \cdot s_{M_d} = 0.23+0.159=0.389$

The 95% confidence interval for the difference between means is (0.071, 0.389).

Hypothesis test

This is a hypothesis test for the difference between populations means.

The claim is that the fish in this particular polluted lake have signficantly elevated mercury levels.

Then, the null and alternative hypothesis are:

$H_0: \mu_1-\mu_2=0\\\\H_a:\mu_1-\mu_2> 0$

The significance level is 0.05.

The sample 1, of size n1=5 has a mean of 0.63 and a standard deviation of 0.061.

The sample 2, of size n2=4 has a mean of 0.4 and a standard deviation of 0.123.

The difference between sample means is Md=0.23.

$M_d=M_1-M_2=0.63-0.4=0.23$

The estimated standard error of the difference between means is computed using the formula:

$s_{M_d}=\sqrt{\dfrac{\sigma_1^2}{n_1}+\dfrac{\sigma_2^2}{n_2}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{0.061^2}{5}+\dfrac{0.123^2}{4}}\\\\\\s_{M_d}=\sqrt{0.001+0.004}=\sqrt{0.005}=0.07$

Then, we can calculate the t-statistic as:

$t=\dfrac{M_d-(\mu_1-\mu_2)}{s_{M_d}}=\dfrac{0.23-0}{0.07}=\dfrac{0.23}{0.07}=3.42$

The degrees of freedom for this test are:

$df=n_1+n_2-1=5+4-2=7$

This test is a right-tailed test, with 7 degrees of freedom and t=3.42, so the P-value for this test is calculated as (using a t-table):

$\text{P-value}=P(t>3.42)=0.006$

As the P-value (0.006) is smaller than the significance level (0.05), the effect is significant.

The null hypothesis is rejected.

There is enough evidence to support the claim that the fish in this particular polluted lake have signficantly elevated mercury levels.

c. They agree. Both conclude that the levels of mercury are significnatly higher compared to a unpolluted lake.

In the case of the confidence interval, we reach this conclusion because the lower bound is greater than 0. This indicates that, with more than 95% confidence, we can tell that the difference in mercury levels is positive.

In the case of the hypothesis test, we conclude that because the P-value indicates there is a little chance we get that samples if there is no significant difference between the mercury levels. This indicates that the values of mercury in the polluted lake are significantly higher than the unpolluted lake.

7 0

3 years ago