Divide 9(7y − 15) by 110 − 6y4

Answer:

The 52th card that was dealt was an 8.

Step-by-step explanation:

The total value of the entire deck is [tex]4(1 + 2 + \cdots + 9 + 10 \cdot 3) = 4(\frac{10 \cdot 11}{2} + 20) = 220 + 80 \equiv 0 \mod 10.[/tex]

The total value of the 51 cards face-up is congruent to [tex]0 + 3 + 6 + 1 + 10 + 10 + 4 + 8 = 42 \equiv 2 \mod 10.[/tex]

The 52th card must therefore be an 8 for the total value of the entire deck to be 8 mod 10. (Or, rather, we have that the last card must be [tex]0-2 \equiv 8 \mod 10[/tex] and the only card that is congruent to that value modulo 10 is the 8.)

Answer:

4

3

0

Step-by-step explanation:

the answer to the equation is x=15

Answer:

3?

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

134568

Step-by-step explanation:

go go go

Answer:

X=9

Step-by-step explanation:

2(9)-5 > 11

18-5 > 11

13>11

2x-5>11

2x-5+5>11+5 five will be cancelled five

2x>11+5

2x>16 divide 2 by 2 you get x then divide 16 by 2

x>8 this means x is greater than eight {x= 9,10,11,12.......}

Answer:

( -∞, -2.5] ∪ (-1, 2)

Step-by-step explanation:

1/(x + 1) ≥ 3/(x - 2)

x - 2 ≥ 3(x + 1)

x - 2 ≥ 3x + 3

x - 3x ≥ 3 + 2

-2x ≥ 5

x ≤ -2.5

Interval notation:

( -∞, -2.5] ∪ (-1, 2)

Answer:

The expected value for the number of times Todd attends a concert during a month is 0.5.

Step-by-step explanation:

We have these following probabilities:

5% probability of attending a concert twice a month, which means that P(X = 2) = 0.05

40% probability of attending a concert once a month, which means that P(X = 1) = 0.4

55% probability of not attending a concert during the month, which means that P(X = 0) = 0.55

What is the expected value for the number of times Todd attends a concert during a month?

We multiply each value by its probability. So

[tex]E(X) = 0.05*2 + 0.4*1 + 0.55*0 = 0.1 + 0.4 = 0.5[/tex]

The expected value for the number of times Todd attends a concert during a month is 0.5.

its 7y bcs y + 7 is addition,y / 7 is division and y - 7 is subtraction

Answer: 12 hours

Step-by-step explanation:

Let's set the speed as "s".

Remember that distance = speed * time

So, plugging the numbers given...

7 = s * 8.4

Divide both sides by 8.4

s = 5/6

Now, plug this into the distance = speed * time, with the distance being 10. Set the time as "t"

10 = 5/6 * t

Divide both sides by 5/6

12 = t

So, it would take 12 hours for the snail to crawl 10 miles.

Answer:

x>-8 (Or option D)

Step-by-step explanation:

-2x+7<23 Subtract 7 from both sides

-2x<16 Now divide by -2. You also have to flip the < sign because you are dividing by a negative number

x>-8

The reasoning for D over C is because D is an open circle meaning that it is only less than or greater than. When it is a closed circle, it means less than or equal to or greater than or equal to. :)

Answer:

the slope of the line is -4

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

-3

Step-by-step explanation:

6y²+2xy+2x

Step-by-step explanation:

8y²-2y²=6y²

7xy-5xy= 2xy

2x=2x

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

4(x-5)=4x-20

4x-20=4x-20

+20 +20

4x=4x

-4x -4x therefore there's infinite solutions

0=0

Answer:

20%

Step-by-step explanation:

300 - 240 = 60  ÷  300 = 20% mangoes.

Answer:

a² - b²

= (a+b) (a-b)

Hope it helps!

hi

f(x) = -12x²+9x

So

f'(x) =  -24x +9

if  x = 6   then  f'(6) = -24 (6) +9 = -135

Answer:

-4 or 4

Step-by-step explanation:

:)

Answer:

[tex](x-7)^2+(y-1)^2=100[/tex]

Step-by-step explanation:

1) Find the radius

We can do this by using the distance equation with the centre (7,1) and the given point (-1,-5):

[tex]d=\sqrt{(x_2-x_1)^2+(y_2-y_1)^2}[/tex] where the two points are [tex](x_1,y_1)[/tex] and [tex](x_2,y_2)[/tex]

Plug in the points (7,1) and (-1,-5)

[tex]d=\sqrt{(-1-7)^2+(-5-1)^2}\\d=\sqrt{(-8)^2+(-6)^2}\\d=\sqrt{64+36}\\d=\sqrt{100}\\d=10[/tex]

Therefore, the radius of the circle is 10 units.

2) Plug the data into the equation of a circle

Equation of a circle (when not centred at the origin):

[tex](x-h)^2+(y-k)^2=r^2[/tex] where the centre is [tex](h,k)[/tex] and r is the radius

Plug in the centre (7,1) as (h,k)

[tex](x-7)^2+(y-1)^2=r^2[/tex]

Plug in the radius 10

[tex](x-7)^2+(y-1)^2=10^2\\(x-7)^2+(y-1)^2=100[/tex]

I hope this helps!

Answer:

2.5:1 or 2.5

Step-by-step explanation:

5/2 ÷ 2 would give you 2.5/1 or 2.5

Answer:

volume of cuboid(v)=l*b*h

3cm*4cm*5cm

60cm cube

Answer:

E

Step-by-step explanation:

AP Classroom says so.

The data doesn't provide convincing statistical evidence for considered proportion comparison. We deduce that: Option E: There is not convincing statistical evidence

There are two hypotheses. First one is called null hypothesis and it is chosen such that it predicts nullity or no change in a thing. It is usually the hypothesis against which we do the test. The hypothesis which we put against null hypothesis is alternate hypothesis.

Null hypothesis is the one which researchers try to disprove.

Suppose we have:

Then, we get:

[tex]Z = \dfrac{\hat{p}_1 - \hat{p}_2}{\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p}_1 )(\dfrac{1}{n_1} + \dfrac{1}{n_2}) }}[/tex]

If the level of significance = [tex]\alpha[/tex]critical value of Z is: [tex]Z_{\alpha/2}[/tex], and if [tex]Z > Z_{\alpha/2}[/tex]null hypothesis, else if [tex]Z_{\alpha/2} > Z[/tex] then we cannot reject it.

For this case, we want to know if  the data provides convincing statistical evidence that the proportion who would be classified as normal after one month of taking cinnamon is greater than the proportion who would be classified as normal after one month of not taking cinnamon.

Thus, we get our hypotheses as:

Null hypotheses: They don't provide convincing evidence (and thus, cinnamon had no improvement on the proportion), and thus:

[tex]H_0: \hat{p}_1 \leq \hat{p}_2[/tex]

Alternate hypothesis: Data provides convincing evidence (that the use of cinnamon made increment in considered proportion), and thus:

[tex]H_a: \hat{p}_1 > \hat{p}_2[/tex]

The test is single tailed.

For this case, we have:

Thus, we get:

[tex]Z = \dfrac{\hat{p}_1 - \hat{p}_2}{\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p}_1 )(\dfrac{1}{n_1} + \dfrac{1}{n_2}) }} =\dfrac{0.35 - 0.25}{\sqrt{0.3(0.7 )(\dfrac{1}{40} + \dfrac{1}{40}) }} \approx 0.976[/tex]

At 0.01 level of significance ([tex]\alpha = 0.01 = 1\%[/tex]), we get the critical value of Z from z-tables as:

[tex]Z_{\alpha/2} = 2.576[/tex]

Since [tex]Z_{\alpha/2} > Z[/tex] , we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and thus, deduce that there is not convincing statistical evidence at the level of 0.01

At 0.05 level of significance ([tex]\alpha = 0.05 = 5\%[/tex]), we get the critical value of Z from z-tables as:

[tex]Z_{\alpha/2} = 1.96[/tex]

Since [tex]Z_{\alpha/2} > Z[/tex] , we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and thus, deduce that there is not convincing statistical evidence at the level of 0.05

At 0.10 level of significance ([tex]\alpha = 0.10 = 10\%[/tex]), we get the critical value of Z from z-tables as:

[tex]Z_{\alpha/2} = 1.645[/tex]

Since [tex]Z_{\alpha/2} > Z[/tex] , we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and thus, deduce that there is not convincing statistical evidence at the level of 0.10

Remember that the conclusions can be made even if they were volunteers since that doesn't make it wrong as volunteers are randomly coming out people from real population.

Thus, we deduce that: Option E: There is not convincing statistical evidence

Learn more about two proportions z-test here:

https://brainly.com/question/4757147

Answer:

but please where is the question?

Answer:

have no idea

Step-by-step explanation:

Hope someone else answers and sorry that ai didn't answer

Answer:

Last option:

(-13, -12, 9)

Step-by-step explanation:

Here you need to look at a number line.

(an infinite line with the zero in the middle, at the left we have the negative numbers which increase to the left, and at the right, we have the positive numbers that increase to the right)

for any two pair of numbers in the number line, the number at the right is larger than the number at the left.

So for example, -10 is at the left of -3

Then:

-10 < -3.

Then a set is ordered from least to greatest if:

first we have the largest negative numbers

then the smaller negative numbers

then the zero (if there is a zero)

then the smaller positive numbers

then the largest positive numbers.

The only set that meets this condition is the last one:

(-13, -12, 9)

Why the others not meet this condition?

in the first one we have -9 after 5, and we know that -9 < 5

in the second one we actually have an order from greatest to least.

in the third one we have -8 at the right of 12, and we know that -8 < 12

Answer:

Nice square Mr. Denson.

Step-by-step explanation: