HELP PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!

Micah is buying items for a birthday party. If he wants to have the same amount of each item, what is the least number of packag

Zolol [24]

For us to be able to answer this question the number of the items that Micah is buying.
....and any important information concerning this problem.

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The volume of a sphere is 5,000pi m3. What is the surface area of the sphere to the nearest square meter?

tia_tia [17]

Surface area of a sphere = 4πr2
the volume of a sphere= 43πr3
so 5000π=4/3πr3
> r^3 = 5000 x 3 / 4 =>
r^3 = 3750
taking cube root on both sides
r=15.53616
hope it helps

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Joy makes 6.5 litres of soup, correct to the nearest 0.5 litre. She serves the soup in 280 ml portions, correct to the nearest 1

Levart [38]

Answer:

Joy definitely does have enough soup for 22 people.

Step-by-step explanation:

Upper Bound: 285ml turn it to 0.285 L 10÷2=5

280ml :

Lower Bound: 275ml turn it to 0.275 L

Upper Bound: 6.75 L 0.5÷2=0.25

6.5 Litters :

Lower Bound:6.25 L

6.75÷0.275=24.54 or 25

6.25÷0.285=21.92 or 22

7 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

"Immediately after a ban on using hand-held cell phones while driving was implemented, compliance with the law was measured. A r

sergiy2304 [10]

Answer:

(a) Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : $p_1-p_2=0$ or $p_1= p_2$

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_A$ : $p_1-p_2\neq 0$ or $p_1\neq p_2$

(b) We conclude that there is a statistical difference in these two proportions measured initially and then one year later.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that a random sample of 1,250 drivers found that 98.9% were in compliance. A year after the implementation, compliance was again measured to see if compliance was the same (or not) as previously measured.

A different random sample of 1,100 drivers found 96.9% compliance."

Let $p_1$ = proportion of drivers that were in compliance initially

$p_2$ = proportion of drivers that were in compliance one year later

(a) Null Hypothesis, $H_0$ : $p_1-p_2=0$ or $p_1= p_2$ {means that there is not any statistical difference in these two proportions measured initially and then one year later}

Alternate Hypothesis, $H_A$ : $p_1-p_2\neq 0$ or $p_1\neq p_2$ {means that there is a statistical difference in these two proportions measured initially and then one year later}

The test statistics that will be used here is Two-sample z proportion statistics;

T.S. = $\frac{(\hat p_1-\hat p_2)-(p_1-p_2)}{\sqrt{ \frac{\hat p_1(1-\hat p_1)}{n_1} + \frac{\hat p_2(1-\hat p_2)}{n_2}} }$ ~ N(0,1)

where, $\hat p_1$ = sample proportion of drivers in compliance initially = 98.9%

$\hat p_2$ = sample proportion of drivers in compliance one year later = 96.9%

$n_1$ = sample of drivers initially = 1,250

$n_2$ = sample of drivers one year later = 1,100

(b) So, the test statistics = $\frac{(0.989-0.969)-(0)}{\sqrt{ \frac{0.989(1-0.989)}{1,250} + \frac{0.969(1-0.969)}{1,100}} }$

= 3.33

Now, P-value of the test statistics is given by;

P-value = P(Z > 3.33) = 1 - P(Z $\leq$ 3.33)

= 1 - 0.99957 = 0.00043

Since in the question we are not given with the level of significance so we assume it to be 5%. Now at 5% significance level, the z table gives critical values between -1.96 and 1.96 for two-tailed test.

Since our test statistics does not lies within the range of critical values of z, so we have sufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will fall in the rejection region due to which we reject our null hypothesis.

Therefore, we conclude that there is a statistical difference in these two proportions measured initially and then one year later.

7 0

2 years ago

Last year Beth's annual salary was $38,350. This year she received a promotion and now earns $46,462 annually. She is paid biwee

kenny6666 [7]

Answer:

Quite simple. There are 52 weeks in a year. She gets paid 26 times, every other week.

38,350 / 26 = her salary from last year per check.

46,462 / 26 = her new salary per check

(46,462 - 38,350) / 26 = the difference per week

8 0

1 year ago