Hmmmm well I would first round the 1 and make it a 0 round the 9 and add to 6 and round 7 (was originally 6) to add 1 to 25 and then round 26 to 30
Well this is a hard question to answer, but this is how i would put it.
You would take a number (lets use 15) and the second number (lets use 5) would determine how many times it would go into 15. In other words, 5 time x would equal 15 (5x=15). 5, being a factor of 15, would evenly fit into 15 three times.
Answer:
<em>AAS</em>
Step-by-step explanation:
<em>because</em><em> </em><em>here </em><em>it </em><em>is </em><em>given</em><em> </em><em>that </em><em>two </em><em>angle </em><em>are</em>
<em> </em><em>equal</em>
and a side is common between both traingle
so, both traingle are congruent by
<em><u>AAS</u></em>
hope it helps
<h3>
Answer: Choice B</h3>
No, this is not a plausible value for the population mean, because 5 is not within the 95% confidence interval.
====================================================
Explanation:
The greek letter mu is the population mean. It has the symbol which looks like the letter 'u' but with a tail at the front or left side.
The question is asking if mu = 5 is plausible if the researcher found the 95% confidence interval to be 5.2 < mu < 7.8
We see that 5 is <u>not</u> in that interval. It's a bit to the left of 5.2
Since mu = 5 is not in the interval, it's not a plausible value for the population mean.
Have we ruled it out with 100% confidence? No. Such a thing is not possible. There's always room for (slight) error. The researcher would need to do a census to be fully confident; however, such practices are very time consuming and expensive. This is the main reason why statistics is important to try to estimate the population with a sample.