9.3 × 107 would be the scientific notation
Answer:
15 inches
Step-by-step explanation:
We assume that the edge of the small square is x (inches).
As the edge of the larger square is 2 inches greater than that of the smaller one, so that the edge of the larger square = edge of the small square + 2 = x + 2 (inches)
The equation to calculate the are of a square is: <em>Area = Edge^2 </em>
So that:
+) The area of the larger square is: <em>Area large square = </em>
<em> (square inches)</em>
+) The area of the smaller square is: <em>Area small square = </em>
<em>(square inches)</em>
<em />
As difference in area of both squares are 64 square inches, so that we have:
<em>Area large square - Area small square = 64 (square inches)</em>
<em>=> </em>
<em />
<em>=> </em>
<em />
<em>=> 4x + 4 = 64</em>
<em>=> 4x = 64 - 4 = 60 </em>
<em>=> x = 60/4 = 15 (inches)</em>
So the length of an edge of the smaller square is 15 inches
Answer:
Th computed value of the test statistic is 3.597
Step-by-step explanation:
The null and the alternative hypothesis is as follows:
Null Hypothesis:
the population correlation coefficient is equal to zero
the population correlation coefficient is not equal to zero
The test statistics for Pearson correlation coefficient is thus computed as :

where;
r = correlation coefficient = 0.60
n = sample size = 25
So;



t = 3.597
Comparing to a critical value of t (23 degrees of freedom two-tailed value) = 2.069
Decision Rule:
Since computed value of t is greater than the critical value of t; We reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
Conclusion:
We conclude that the population correlation coefficient significantly differs from 0 at 5% (0.05) level of significance.
The answer is true trust just had this