Answer:
I dont rally know
Step-by-step explanation:
try it yourself
I think you meant it to be not repeating 3 times so
You do 192/3 is 60*3= 180 leaving you with 12 which is 4*3. So 64 is A
Then it’s 300/5 which is 60
455/7. So first see, if I multiply 7 by 60 is it over or under. If it’s over then B is the least and if it is less then C is the least. So 7 *60 is 420
C Being greater, b costs least per night
Answer:
There is enough evidence to support the claim that the true proportion of monitors with dead pixels is greater than 5%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 300
p = 5% = 0.05
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of dead pixels , x = 24
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed(right) test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from excel.
P-value = 0.00856
Since the p-value is smaller than the significance level, we fail to accept the null hypothesis and reject it. We accept the alternate hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is enough evidence to support the claim that the true proportion of monitors with dead pixels is greater than 5%.
The perimeter is the sum of the enclosing side.
From the figure, the perimeter is
P = 11 + (x-2) + (11-3) + [(x-2) - (x-11)] + (x-11)
= 11 + x - 2 + 8 + 9 + x - 11
= 2x + 15
Answer: 2x + 15