This problem really should have the image attached, as we are not quite sure what the radius of the cone is, nor are we sure about how deeply the cone-shaped hole is bored into the cube. When I did this, I just assumed that the radius of the cone was half the length of the cube which is 3.5, and I assumed that the height of the cone was the same as the height of the cube which is 7. So the volume for the cube itself is 7*7*7=343. Now we have to subtract from that the volume of the cube, which has a formula of

If we fill in those values I'm assuming to be accurate, our formula then looks like this:

which equals 89.752 If we subtract the volume of the cone from the volume of the cube, we will get that volume of what's left is
When you say empirical argument, it means facts gathered and concluded through a series of experimentation and reliable data gathered and not through theory or speculation.
Therefore, a sample size can greatly affect the validity of an empirical argument once proven inaccurate because what we want to see in an empirical argument is the clear-cut reality of what the researchers gathered through meticolous experimentation and not otherwise.
300ml of ethanol is not the same as 300L of ethanol and 2 grams of salt is not 2 kilos of salt. However, if it can be explained thoroughly that a sample size is just a fraction representation of the original, it is wise to create a control subject to compare the data and make it more reliable. Say for example, you wouild like to compare the sun and the earth, make sure to make the models realistically proportional in your miniature globe models.
Answer:
the answer for the question is 13°
Answer:
.5
Step-by-step explanation:
22
23
=
22
23
=
2*2
2*2*2
=
1
2
(Decimal: 0.5)