ertificates 6.00% per annum ---x
AA bond 11.00% per annum ---y
x + 1 y= 160000 ------------------------1
6.00% x + 11.00% y= 15600
Multiply by 100
6 x + 11 y= 1560000.00 --------2
Multiply (1) by -6
we get
-6 x -6 y= -960000.00
The soluition set is (-3,5) and a normal ordered pair reads (x,y). So that means 5 = [_]x-10
-Add 10 to both sides
15 = [_]x
-And we know the value of x so lets sub that in.
15 = [_](-3)
-And now we divide by -3
-5 = [_]
Next we have 3x-[_]y=-19
-Lets start this buy substituting values of x and y into the equation again.
3(-3)-[_](5)=-19
-Simplify
-9 - [_](5) = -19
-Move the (-9) by adding 9 to both sides
-[_](5) = -10
-divide by 5 = -2
-(1)[_] = -2
[_] = 2
Answer:
I took them a total of 5 hours
Step-by-step explanation:
First you multiply 65 by 2 because of the first two hours
Then you subtract 130 out of 364 to get 234, those were the first two hours
The next hours you simply divide 234/78, which is 3
3 + 2 = 5 hours
<h3>
Answer: Choice B</h3>
No, this is not a plausible value for the population mean, because 5 is not within the 95% confidence interval.
====================================================
Explanation:
The greek letter mu is the population mean. It has the symbol
which looks like the letter 'u' but with a tail at the front or left side.
The question is asking if mu = 5 is plausible if the researcher found the 95% confidence interval to be 5.2 < mu < 7.8
We see that 5 is <u>not</u> in that interval. It's a bit to the left of 5.2
Since mu = 5 is not in the interval, it's not a plausible value for the population mean.
Have we ruled it out with 100% confidence? No. Such a thing is not possible. There's always room for (slight) error. The researcher would need to do a census to be fully confident; however, such practices are very time consuming and expensive. This is the main reason why statistics is important to try to estimate the population with a sample.
Answer:
150 units^2
Step-by-step explanation:
A=6a2=6·52=150