<h2>6.</h2><h3>Given</h3>
<h3>Find</h3>
- The side length of a regular pentagon whose side lengths in inches are represented by these values
<h3>Solution</h3>
Add 27 to get
... 5x = 2x + 21
... 3x = 21 . . . . . . . subtract 2x
... x = 7 . . . . . . . . . divide by 3
Then we can find the expression values to be
... 5x -27 = 2x -6 = 5·7 -27 = 2·7 -6 = 8
The side of the pentagon is 8 inches.
<h2>8.</h2><h3>Given</h3>
- a rectangle's width is 17 inches
- that rectangle's perimeter is 102 inches
<h3>Find</h3>
- the length of the rectangle
<h3>Solution</h3>
Where P, L, and W represent the perimeter, length, and width of a rectangle, respectively, the relation between them is ...
.... P = 2(L+W)
We can divide by 2 and subtract W to find L
... P/2 = L +W
... P/2 -W = L
And we can fill in the given values for perimeter and width ...
... 102/2 -17 = L = 34
The length of the rectangle is 34 inches.
42 inches because you do 7x6 = 42
15.89$ spent on Seven monster drinks hope it helped:)
Answer:
No, because the 95% confidence interval contains the hypothesized value of zero.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
You have the information regarding two calcium supplements.
X₁: Calcium content of supplement 1
n₁= 12
X[bar]₁= 1000mg
S₁= 23 mg
X₂: Calcium content of supplement 2
n₂= 15
X[bar]₂= 1016mg
S₂= 24mg
It is known that X₁~N(μ₁; σ²₁), X₂~N(μ₂;δ²₂) and σ²₁=δ²₂=?
The claim is that both supplements have the same average calcium content:
H₀: μ₁ - μ₂ = 0
H₁: μ₁ - μ₂ ≠ 0
α: 0.05
The confidence level and significance level are to be complementary, so if 1 - α: 0.95 then α:0.05
since these are two independent samples from normal populations and the population variances are equal, you have to use a pooled variance t-test to construct the interval:
[(X[bar]₁-X[bar]₂) ±
*
]
![t_{n_1+n_2-2;1-/2}= t_{25;0.975}= 2.060](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=t_%7Bn_1%2Bn_2-2%3B1-%2F2%7D%3D%20t_%7B25%3B0.975%7D%3D%202.060)
![Sa= \sqrt{\frac{(n_1-1)S^2_1+(n_2-1)S^2_2}{n_1+n_2-2} }= \sqrt{\frac{11*529+14*576}{12+15-2} } = 23.57](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=Sa%3D%20%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B%28n_1-1%29S%5E2_1%2B%28n_2-1%29S%5E2_2%7D%7Bn_1%2Bn_2-2%7D%20%7D%3D%20%5Csqrt%7B%5Cfrac%7B11%2A529%2B14%2A576%7D%7B12%2B15-2%7D%20%7D%20%3D%2023.57)
[(1000-1016)±2.060*23.57*
]
[-34.80;2.80] mg
The 95% CI contains the value under the null hypothesis: "zero", so the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis. Then using a 5% significance level you can conclude that there is no difference between the average calcium content of supplements 1 and 2.
I hope it helps!
I hope this helps you
x^5.y^2.z/x^2.y
x^5-2.y^2-1.z
x^3.y.z