A correlation coefficient is always a value in between -1 and 1
The closest a coefficient to -1, the correlation is a strong negative correlation
The closest a coefficient to 1, the correlation is a strong positive correlation
The closest a coefficient to 0, there is no correlation at all
The coefficient -0.61 shows a strong negative correlation
This means that the relationship between the age and the violation is an inverse relationship; as age increases, violation decreases
Answer: option C
Well, let us solve this step by step.
We know that Michelle earns 349 plus 3% of the Purchase
price. Let us call the Purchase price as P, so that:
Earnings, E = 349 + 0.03 P
So if she earns 8,965 (E = 8,965) so we can find P:
8,965 = 349 + 0.03 P
0.03 P = 8,616
P = $287,200
Answer:
1.5s+2.5p<20
Step-by-step explanation:
Multiply by each kilo and then make sure it adds up to less than 20!
The variable is Quantitative, has Interval level of measurement.
Variables which can be quantified & expressed numerically are Quantitative variables. Eg : as given , price
Variables which cant be qualified & expressed numerically are Qualitative variables. Eg : level of honesty, loyalty etc
Nominal & Ordinal are qualitative variables : signifying yes or no to a category (like men or women) , or ranks (x better than y) respectively. So price level is not such categorical & ordinal ratio.
Quantitative ratio variables are with reference to time , or are in forms of rate (like speed , growth per year). So, price level is not such ratio variable also.
Price is a quantitative variable, in which the ranking, its difference can be calculated. This is characteristic of a <u>Quantitative Interval Variable</u>.
Answer:
Let 'x' and 'y' be two different numbers.
Leila says that 75% of a number will always be greater than 50% of a number. The inequality that represents this statement is the following:
0.75x > 0.5y
Let x = 100 and y=200. We have that:
0.75(100) > 0.5(200)
75 > 100 ❌ INCORRECT ❌
Given that we found a case in which 75% of a number is not greater than 50% of a number, we can conclude that Leila's claim is incorrect.