The Angles are adjacent and since they are both on a straight line it means that the sum of the angle is 180 degrees, so we get the equations:
So x = 26.
Hope that helps!
100 pts help me please.
1 answer:
<u>Answer:</u>
- Carly's expenditure was $240 and the number of boxes of cards was required is 24 boxes.
<u>Step-by-step explanation:</u>
We know that:
- 48 + 8(b) = Carly's expenditure
- 10(b) = Carly's expenditure
- 48 + 8b = 10b
- B = Boxes of cards
<u>Work:</u>
- 48 + 8b = 10b
- => 48 + 8b - 8b = 10b - 8b
- => 48 = 2b
- => b = 24
<u>Now, let's substitute the value of b into any equation.</u>
- 10(24)
- => 240
<u>Hence, Carly's expenditure was $240 and the number of boxes of cards was required is 24 boxes.</u>
Hoped this helped.
You might be interested in
Answer:
The value of r is always between
And we have another measure related to the correlation coefficient called the R square and this value measures the % of variance explained between the two variables of interest, and for this case we have:
So then the best conclusion for this case would be:
c. the fraction of variation in weights explained by the least-squares regression line of weight on height is 0.64.
Step-by-step explanation:
For this case we know that the correlation between the height and weight of children aged 6 to 9 is found to be about r = 0.8. And we know that we use the height x of a child to predict the weight y of the child
We need to rememeber that the correlation is a measure of dispersion of the data and is given by this formula:
The value of r is always between
And we have another measure related to the correlation coefficient called the R square and this value measures the % of variance explained between the two variables of interest, and for this case we have:
So then the best conclusion for this case would be:
c. the fraction of variation in weights explained by the least-squares regression line of weight on height is 0.64.
Answer:
100+10= 110
110/100= 1.1
30 X 1.1^2= 36.3
$36.30
