One of the major advantage of the two-condition experiment has to do with interpreting the results of the study. Correct scientific methodology does not often allow an investigator to use previously acquired population data when conducting an experiment. For example, in the illustrative problem involving early speaking in children, we used a population mean value of 13.0 months. How do we really know the mean is 13.0 months? Suppose the figures were collected 3 to 5 years before performing the experiment. How do we know that infants haven’t changed over those years? And what about the conditions under which the population data were collected? Were they the same as in the experiment? Isn’t it possible that the people collecting the population data were not as motivated as the experimenter and, hence, were not as careful in collecting the data? Just how were the data collected? By being on hand at the moment that the child spoke the first word? Quite unlikely. The data probably were collected by asking parents when their children first spoke. How accurate, then, is the population mean?
Answer:
C. (4,-7)
Step-by-step explanation:
To answer this question, I just graphed the two equations. Then I found where they intersected.
Adding a value to the X value shifts the graph that many units to the left.
X+2 adds 2 to x, so the graph would shift 2 unites to the left.
The answer is:
The graph of g(x) is the graph of f(x) translated 2 units left.
