Answer:
- <u><em>D. No, because $100,000 is much greater than the values used in the experiment.</em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
Explanation:
<em>Correlations</em>, when have strong correlation coefficients, which r = 0.9 is, may be good predictors within the limits of the range of the data.
Trying to extrapolate the <em>linear relationship</em> between the variables, <em>x = advertising spending and y= product sales</em>, way beyond the limits of the data used for the study, is too risky, because the data may be linear just for some stages (ranges) but behave very different in other ranges.
As, the option D. states, <em>$100,000 is much greater that the values used in the experiment</em>; hence, the correlation would likely would not be a good predictor for that input.
Answer:
the likely thing is to simply show him the approach
the least likely thing to do is to follow what he says
Explanation:
Answer:
His error will be tat e multiplied te distance covered by te mouse by 3hours
Explanation:
he concluded that the mouse travel 3/8 of a mile each hour what is Matt's error
would ave been the conclusive part of the question
. solution
the total distance travelled in three hours is
3/24 mile
each hour the mouse will travel 
speed is distance travelled per time
s=distance/time
1/24 mile for every hour
matt concluded bte mouse travelled 3/8mile for every our
His error will be tat e multiplied te distance covered by te mouse by 3hours
<span>Industrialized agriculture. Because he plants them,takes care of them,manufacture them and sell them.
Hope this helps,
kwrob
</span>