Ask question

Ask question

All categories

2 years ago

4

William recently purchased a new car for $28,000. The car's value depreciates 7% each year. What will be the value of the car 5

years after it was purchased? Round to nearest dollar.

1 answer:

cluponka [151]2 years ago

8 0

Answer:

$19219

Step-by-step explanation:

Google

You might be interested in

A school graduation class wants to hire buses and vans for a trip to Jasper National Park. Each bus

BARSIC [14]

Let the school hire x buses and y vans.

A bus can hold 40 students and 3 teachers.
A van can hold 8 students and 1 teacher.

The number of students riding in buses and vans is at least 400, therefore
40x + 8y ≥ 400 (1)

The number of teachers riding in buses and vans is at most 36, therefore
3x + y ≤ 36 (2)

Write (1) and (2) as
y ≥ 50 - 5x (3)
y ≤ 36 - 3x (4)

The equality portion of the solution of (3) and (4) is
36 - 3x = 50 - 5x
2x = 14
x = 7 => y = 36 - 3*7 = 15

A graph of the inequalities indicates the acceptable solution in shaded color, as shown below.

The minimum cost of renting buses and vans is
7*$1200 + 15*$100 = $9900

Answer: The minimum cost is $9,900

6 0

2 years ago

A study of 31,000 hospital admissions in New York State found that 4% of the admissions led to treatment-caused injuries. One-se

vovikov84 [41]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

a) probability a person admitted to the hospital will suffer a treatment-caused injury due to negligence

P(injury) = 4%

P(negligence) = 1/4 = 0.25

We need to find probability (injury)(negligence)

P(injury) * P(negligence) = 0.04*0.25 = 0.01

b) probability a person admitted to the hospital will die from a treatment-caused injury

P(injury) = 4%

P(death) = 1/7

P(Injury) *P(death) = 0.04/7 = 0.00571

c) In the case of a negligent treatment-caused injury, what is the probability a malpractice claim will be paid

P(claim) = 1/7.5

P(payment) = 1/2

P(claim)*P(payment) = 1/7.5 * 1/2 = 0.06

7 0

2 years ago

Which statements are true? Check all that apply.

mariarad [96]

Answer:

A, B, and C

Step-by-step explanation:

A) We can see if this is a horizontal line if its slope is 0. Slope is change in y divided by change in x, so: slope = $\frac{7-7}{3-(-2)} =\frac{0}{5} =0$ . Thus, this is a horizontal line and the statement is correct.

B) Any equation of the form x = k, where k is a constant, will always be a straight line. Let's see if it goes through (-8, 3) by plugging in the values of -8 in for x and 3 in for y in the equation.

Clearly, we don't have a y, so we just put in the -8 for the x: -8 = -8. Since this is a true statement, we know that x = -8 does go through (-8, 3). So, this is a true statement.

C) We can see if this is a vertical line if its slope is undefined (for example, if the denominator is 0, it's undefined). Slope = $\frac{5-(-7)}{0-0} =\frac{12}{0}$ = undefined. So, this is a vertical line and the statement is true.

D) As a basic fact, any point on a horizontal line will have the same y coordinate. However, their x coordinates may vary. Thus, the statement is false.

So, the answers are A, B, and C.

Hope this helps!

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Before leaving to visit Mexico, levant traded 270 american dollars and received 3000 mexican pesos. When he returned from mexico

Makovka662 [10]

Levant will receive about 9 american dollars when he exchanges his pesos.

According to this question, 1 american dollar is worth about 11 pesos. In order to find that, you need to divide 3000/270 which gives you around 11. In order to find out how many dollars he will receive for his pesos, you need to divide 100 by 11 which gives you about 9 dollars.

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Edwin Edwards and Karen Davis owned EEE, Inc., which owned three convenience stores, all of which sold gasoline. Reid Ellis deli

Ulleksa [173]

Question Completion:

Note: This is a Law question, not Mathematics.

Answer:

Decision:

Edwards and Davis are not personally liable for the debts of EEE, Inc.

Step-by-step explanation:

That Edwin Edwards and Karen Davis owned EEE Inc. does not force them to be personally liable for the debts of EEE Inc. EEE Inc. is a separate legal entity. There is the legal separation of ownership and the liabilities of Edwards and Davis are limited to the capital they contributed or undertook to contribute to the corporation. The corporate veil is only lifted when it is ascertained that EEE Inc. was not run as a legal entity separate from the owners. We can also conclude that there is no evidence of abuse of the corporate form of EEE Inc. with comingling of assets or for the purpose of promoting fraud or injustice or evasion of tort or contractual responsibility on the part of Edwards and Davis. Therefore, Edwin Edwards and Karen Davis are not personally liable for the debts of EEE Inc. as claimed by Reid Ellis.

5 0

2 years ago