Answer:
X in math doesn’t have a value it’s an unknown number good luck though
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer: 85
Step-by-step explanation:
Kid.
Hello,
Sandy is right .
Other method:
V=168=(10+4)*3*4
Answer: First of all, we will add the options.
A. Yes, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
B. Yes, because the regression equation is based on a random sample.
C. Yes, because the association between length and weight is positive.
D. No, because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
E. No, because there may not be any 3-inch fish of this species in the pond.
The correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation: It would not be appropriate to use the model to predict the weight of species that is 3 inches long because 3 inches falls above the maximum value of lengths in the sample.
As we can see from the question, the model only accounts for species that are within the range of 0.75 to 1.35 inches in length, and species smaller or larger than that length have not been taken into consideration. Therefore the model can not be used to predict the weights of fishes not with the range accounted for.
Answer:
53°
Step-by-step explanation:
It is given that the total measurement of the two angles combined would equate to 116°.
It is also given that m∠WXY is 10° more then m∠ZXY.
Set the system of equation:
m∠1 + m∠2 = 116°
m∠1 = m∠2 + 10°
First, plug in "m∠2 + 10" for m∠1 in the first equation:
m∠1 + m∠2 = 116°
(m∠2 + 10) + m∠2 = 116°
Simplify. Combine like terms:
2(m∠2) + 10 = 116
Next, isolate the <em>variable</em>, m∠2. Note the equal sign, what you do to one side, you do to the other. Do the opposite of PEMDAS.
First, subtract 10 from both sides of the equation:
2(m∠2) + 10 (-10) = 116 (-10)
2(m∠2) = 116 - 10
2(m∠2) = 106
Next, divide 2 from both sides of the equation:
(2(m∠2))/2 = (106)/2
m∠2 = 106/2 = 53°
53° is your answer.
~
