i need help please , i’ll give brainliest and 5 stars

Answer:

(15/16)" + (3/32)" = (33/32)" = 1.03125" of material from the rod. since each pin needs to be (15/16)" = 0.9375" we have enough rod for one more pin.

Answer:

5000

Step-by-step explanation:

i dont know this answer but i try that

Answer:

Dude post it again lol

Step-by-step explanation:

The picture is so blurry

Answer:

A possible number line is shown below.

Step-by-step explanation:

I-----------------I----------------I

0                  1/3                1

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

I believe that $0.97 would be right

Step-by-step explanation:

10.25 - 1.52 = 8.73, divide 8.73 by 9 to get 0.97

Answer:

y = ½x + 8

Step-by-step explanation:

The equation of the function can be written in the slope-intercept form y = mx + b.

m = slope = change in y/change in x

b = y-intercept = the value of y when x is zero

✔️From the table, when x = 0, y is 8.

Therefore,

y-intecept (b) = 8

✔️Find the slope (m) using two of the given pairs of values from the table, (-4, 6) and (2, 9):

m = (9 - 6)/(2 -(-4))

m = 3/6

m = ½

✔️Next is to plug in the values of m and b into y = mx + b.

Thus:

y = ½x + 8

Answer:

the monthly payment is $636.02

Step-by-step explanation:

The computation of the monthly amount deposited i.e. PMT is given below:

GIven that

NPER = 15 × 12 months = 180

RATE = 5% ÷ 12 = 0.4167%

PV = $0

FV = $170,000

based on the above information

The formula is shown below:

= PMT(RATE;NPER;PV;FV;TYPE)

AFter applying the above formula, the monthly payment is $636.02

Answer:

8

Step-by-step explanation:

Use the right triangle altitude theorem. The three triangles are right triangles and are similar.

MP/FP = FP/EP

MP/12 = 12/(EM + MP)

MP/12 = 12/(10 + MP)

MP(10 + MP) = 144

MP^2 + 10MP - 144 = 0

(MP + 18)(MP - 8) = 0

MP = -18  or  MP = 8

Since a side length cannot be negative, the answer is MP = 8

Answer: 8

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:

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:a

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:0.0064516129

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

A. 10 is less than or equal to 1.75+0.65m

B. D

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

C. 140, 40

Step-by-step explanation:

Supplementary angles are two angles that add up to a sum of 180°.

140+40 = 180

Answer:

1.43 Metres

Step-by-step explanation:

Since 1 Metre is equal to 100 centimetres, and 65 + 78 is 143 centimetres, to convert it to METRES we need to divide 143 by a hundred, making the output become 1.43 METRES.

The sum of the lengths of the shelves are 143 cm.

Addition is also known as the sum, subtraction is also known as the difference, multiplication is also known as the product, and division is also known as the factor.

Given, One shelf is 65cm long. Another shelf is 78cm long.

Therefore, The sum of the lengths of the two trucks would be the sum of the individual lengths of the shelf which is,

= (65 + 78) cm.

= 143 cm.

learn more about arithmetic operations here :

https://brainly.com/question/25834626

#SPJ2

9514 1404 393

Answer:

  $102

Step-by-step explanation:

Dan paid $18 more than $84:

  18 + 84 = 102

Dan paid $102 for his snowboard.

7,3), (-2, 3), (3,-2) 0 (-7, -3), (-2, 3), (2, -3)

Answer:

radius [r]=4000mi

circumference [C]=2πr=2×π×4000mi=25132.74mi

so,it travels 25132.74mi in one complete orbit.

Answer:

- 23/36

Step-by-step explanation:

Make sure both fractions of the denominators are the same.

1 x 4 = 4

9 x 4 = 36

3 x 9 = 27

4 x 9 = 36

Final: 4/36 - 27/36 = - 23/36

Answer:

Thanks you pleasentful waffle

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

I think that the equation would be Y= -2X^2-4X-4 .

Step-by-step explanation:

Hope it wad helpful :)

Answer:

x ≥ 4

Step-by-step explanation:

The given inequality is :

4 + 6x ≤ x + 6x

Subtract 6x from both sides,

4 + 6x-6x ≤ x + 6x -6x

4≤ x

or

x ≥ 4

Hence, the correct option is (b) i.e. x ≥ 4.

Answer:

A

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

I know someone answer my questions please quick!

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

110 degrees

Step-by-step explanation:

Parallels lines, when intersected by a straight line, form congruent angles. Therefore 110 is equal to angle 6

Answer:

51ft^2

Step-by-step explanation:

Given data

Side of square patio= 9ft

Area= 9*9= 81 ft^2

New length = 9+3= 12ft

New Widht = 9+2= 11ft

New Area= 12*11

New Area= 132ft^2

Hence the area added is

=132-81

=51ft^2

The 51 square feet area will be added to the patio if the length is increased by 3 feet and the width is by increased  2 feet, Option fourth is correct.

It is given that steve has a square patio with a side length of 9 feet he plans to enlarge it to a rectangular patio by increasing the length by 3 feet and the width by 2 feet.

It is required to find how many square feet in the area will be added.

In mathematics, the area is the space occupied by the 2-dimensional figure or surface.

We know the formula for finding the area of square 'A'

[tex]\rm A= a^{2}[/tex]  where a is the length of the side.

We have a = 9 feet

[tex]\rm A= 9^2\\\rm A= 81 \ Feet^2[/tex]

Increasing the length by 3 feet and the width by 2 feet respectively, wet get:

L =  9+3  ⇒ 12 Feet

W = 9+2 ⇒ 11 Feet, Where L is the length and W is the width of the rectangle.

Area of rectangle = L×W

Area of rectangle = 12×11

Area of rectangle = 132 [tex]\rm Feet^2[/tex]

The area which will be added = (Area of rectangle) - (area of square)

The area which will be added = (132) - (81)

The area which will be added = 51 [tex]\rm Feet^2[/tex]

Thus, the 51 square feet area will be added to the patio.

Learn more about the area here:

https://brainly.com/question/1658516

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Hi there,

The formula depends on what shape you are dealing with. There is no way to determine what formula you need without knowing what type of figure you are dealing with.

Answer:

1. C

2. D

3. B

4. A

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

1. C

2. D

3. B

4. A

Step-by-step explanation: