Answer:
independent=$50
dependent=$35X
Step-by-step explanation:
50 is the independent variable because it doesn't change.
35X is the dependent variable because it does change.
Let x be the number of refrigerators
Y be the number of pianos
So the inequality:
300x + 475y < 7100
So substitute 12 and 8 to the inequality
300(12) + 475(8) < 7100
3600 + 3800 < 7100
7400 < 7100 is not true
So it will overload the truck
Answer:
f(x)=-3(x+2)^2-2
Step-by-step explanation: the the FX graph the -3 in my equation represents the decrease(for being negative) in the graph, the positive 2 represents the x axis if that number is positive the negative 3 is going to change the x axis then will end up being negative which is why the x starts off in negative 2, the last number represents the y axis if the y axis is negative 2 the y will start off at -2
Do a ratio tall over shadow. How tall is tree / shadow. How tall is person / shadow then cross multiply. X/7.5 =5/3. 37.5=3x. Divide by 3 answer 12.5
Let's go through the steps of factoring that Venita should take.
1.) Find the greatest common factor (GCF). We only have two terms, so that makes it pretty easy.
32 = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32
8 = 1, 2, 4, 8
The greatest common factor of 32 and 8 is 8. We can also factor out a <em>b</em> since that term appears in each part of the original expression. The GCF and variable should go on the outside of the parentheses.
8b( )
2.) Now let's figure out what should go in the middle of the parentheses. To do this, use the original expression and divide each term. This is written in the parentheses.
32ab ÷ 8b = 4a
8b ÷ 8b = 1
This would then result in the factored expression 8b(4a - 1). You can always check this by using the distributive property. Distribute 8b out to both expressions:
8b x 4a = 32ab
8b x 1 = 8b
32ab - 8b is the expression she started with, so your factored expression works!
Now that we went through the steps to solve the factored expression, let's check her answer. The only difference between Venita's and ours is that she has 0 as the second term while we have a 1. It seems that she had subtracted the GCF from the second term instead of dividing.
