I found the dot plots that accompanies this problem.
Based on the plots, the <span>statement that gives is a valid comparison of the number of candies in the bags of the two Brands is:
</span><span>B. The number of candies in the bags from Brand B is greater and less consistent than the number of candies in the bags from Brand A.
Dots in Brand B are scattered and whereas dots in Brand A are not and they are more concentrated between 52 to 55 range. </span>
9514 1404 393
Answer:
(c) Yes, because angle 3 and angle 6 are congruent
Step-by-step explanation:
Angles 3 and 6 are "alternate interior" angles. When those angles are congruent, as these are, then the lines crossed by the transversal are parallel.
__
We expect angles 5 and 6 to be supplementary because they are a linear pair. That fact says nothing about the relationship of line d to line c.
<u>Explanation:</u>
a) First, note that the Type I error refers to a situation where the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true. Hence, her null hypothesis would be H0: mean daily demand of her clothes in this region should be greater than or equal to 100.
The implication of Type I error in this case is that Mary <u>rejects</u> that the mean daily demand of her clothes in this region is greater than or equal to 100 when it is actually true.
b) While, the Type II error, in this case, is a situation where Mary accepts the null hypothesis when it is actually false. That is, Mary <u>accepts</u> that the mean daily demand of her clothes in this region is greater than or equal to 100 when it is actually false.
c) The Type I error would be important to Mary because it shows that she'll be having a greater demand (which = more sales) for her products despite erroneously thinking otherwise.
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
x+(x+1)+(x+2)+(x+3)=-210
x+1x+1+1x+2+1x+3=-210
4x+6=-210
4x=-210-6
4x/4x=-216/4
x=54
