Answer: Annabelle is using the a measure of central tendency defined as the Mode.
Step-by-step explanation: A measure of central tendency in its simplest definition is a single value or measure that can safely be used to represent all members belonging to an entire set of given data. Hence, as a good illustration, one figure can be used to confidently represent all other ninety nine figures where a set of one hundred figures were given.
The mean, median and mode are commonly accepted measures of central tendency.
The mode is the most frequently occurring value in a given set of data. As such, the modal value is statistically acceptable as a representative of the entire set of values or data.
If Annabelle measures the sides of 15 right triangles and based on her observations, she concludes that for any right triangle the sum of the squares of the two legs is equal to the square of the hypotenuse, what she has done is taking the most frequently occurring value, and in her experiment, the most frequent of all observed data satisfies the Pythagorean Theorem.
That is why Annabelle can confidently make her assumption.
1) You included neihter what Ramesh says nor the statements, then I can you tell some facts about the pattern.
2) The sequence is: 2401, 343, 49, 7, and 1.
3) The first term is 2401
4) The sequence is a decreasing geometric one.
5) The ratio is found dividing two consecutive terms (the second by the first, or the third by the second, or the fourth by the third, or the fifth by fourth):
1/7 = 7 / 49 = 49 / 343 = 343 / 2401.
So, the ratio is 1/7
6) The sum of that sequence is 2401 + 343 + 49 + 7 + 1 = 2801
Answer:
Option C - Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is not sufficient evidence that the true diameter differs from 0.5 in
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given;
n = 15
t-value = 1.66
Significance level;α = 0.05
So, DF = n - 1 = 15 - 1 = 14
From the one-sample t - table attached, we can see that the p - value of 0.06 at a t-value of 1.66 and a DF of 14
Now, since the P-value is 0.06,it is greater than the significance level of 0.05. Thus we do not reject the null hypothesis. We conclude that there is not sufficient evidence that the true diameter differs from 0.5 in.
