Answer:
see attached
Step-by-step explanation:
The equation is in the form ...
4p(y -k) = (x -h)^2 . . . . . (h, k) is the vertex; p is the focus-vertex distance
Comparing this to your equation, we see ...
p = 4, (h, k) = (3, 4)
p > 0, so the parabola opens upward. The vertex is on the axis of symmetry. That axis has the equation x=x-coordinate of vertex. This tells you ...
vertex: (3, 4)
axis of symmetry: x = 3
focus: (3, 8) . . . . . 4 units up from vertex
directrix: y = 0 . . . horizontal line 4 units down from vertex
Hello there!
For this you simply need to give both fractions a common denominator!
The easiest way to do this specific problem would be to make the denominator 12. Why 12? Because 4 x 3 = 12.
So:
1/4 --> ?/12 --> 1 (3) / 12 --> 3/12
2/3 --> ?/12 --> 2 (4) / 12 --> 8/12
Total amount of time means the sum (adding them together).
When adding fractions, you MUST have a common denominator! (Which is what we just did).
So 3/12 + 8/12 = (8+3) / 12 = 11/12 hours
Notice how the denominator stayed the same? When adding/subtracting fractions, the denominator stays the same! :)
Hope this helped!
-------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional tutor or have any professional background in your subject. Please do not copy my work down, as that will only make things harder for you in the long run. Take the time to really understand this, and it'll make future problems easier. I am human, and may make mistakes, despite my best efforts. Again, I possess no professional background in your subject, so anything you do with my help will be your responsibility. Thank you for reading this, and have a wonderful day/night!
Answer:
A
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
3 examples of mechanical digestion:
Mastication
Swallowing
Peristalsis
Answer:
If we reject the null hypothesis based on the evidence, then our conclusion should be Option c.
If we do not reject the null hypothesis based on the evidence, then our conclusion should be Option a.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given that the FDA wants to set up a hypothesis test to show that the new drug is safe before approving it by assuming it to be unsafe.
So, Null hypothesis, = New drug is unsafe
Alternate Hypothesis, = New drug is safe
<em>Now, if we reject the null hypothesis based on the evidence, then our conclusion should be that : </em>
There is sufficient evidence to believe that the new drug is safe because rejecting null hypothesis means that alternate hypothesis is accepted with required evidence.
<em>And If we do not reject the null hypothesis based on the evidence, then our conclusion should be that : </em>
There is insufficient evidence to believe that the new drug is safe because not rejecting null hypothesis means that we are not ready with enough evidence to assume that new drug is safe.