In what direction is the line containing the points (-4, 3) and (-4, 14) going?
A. horizontal
B. vertical
C. up and to the left
D. down and to the right

it is at least 180 degrees

Answer:

x = 37.5

Step-by-step explanation:

The easiest way to solve this is to realize that the bottom triangle is a an Isosceles triangle, with the upper angle being equal to 180 - 75 degrees.  That gives us the number 105°

Because it's an Isosceles triangle, we can simply say that the bottom angles, including the one we want to calculate are equal and both add up 105 (again, because the angles in a triangle add up to 180, and we know the top one is 105).

That gives us:

(180 / 105) / 2

= 75 / 2

= 37.5

Answer:

1470

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

$49.445 or $49.5 if they round

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

$948.45

Step-by-step explanation:

■ Sales tax: $49.45

■ Cost/Price before ST: $899.00

■ Total Cost/Price including ST: $948.45

Answer:

7,7,15

Step-by-step explanation:

Because the summation of two sides should be greater than the other one

TRY THIS

Step-by-step explanation:

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

[tex] {5}^{ - 2} + {7}^{0} \\ = \frac{1}{ {5}^{2} } + 1 \\ = \frac{1}{25} + 1 \\ = \frac{1 + 25}{25} \\ = \frac{26}{25} [/tex]

Hope it will help :)❤

Answer:

2,2   2,7   5,7

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

-0.2

I couldn't get step by step but hope this answer helps out a little...

(Do you need it for ur assignment?)

Step-by-step explanation:

-18/9 = 2, 9 goes into 18, 2 times, but  a negative divided by a positive always = a negative number so the answer would come out to be -2.  

-18/9 = 2, 9 goes into 18, 2 times, but  a negative divided by a positive always = a negative number so the answer would come out to be -2.  

however is you were typing -1.8 / 9 then it would be -0.2. Multiplying -0.2 * 9 would give you -1.8. Same rule applies as to why it's negative

I wasn't sure if the comma was a typo in your question but I Hope this helps :)

Answer:

I think that the answer would be C .

hope it was helpful :)

Answer:

D, 261

Step-by-step explanation:

Divide all of the answer choices by 9. The answer is the one with the whole number. 261/9=29 29=whole number so D is the answer.

Hope this helps! If it did, please give brainliest! It would help a lot! :D

Answer:

261

Step-by-step explanation:

If the farmer used 9 boxes and each had the same number, we need to find the number that's divisible by 9.

There's a great fact - a number is divisible by 9 if its sum of digits is divisible by 9.

Let's use that fact on the answers first:

281 -> 2 + 8 + 1 -> 11 -> 1 + 1 -> 2; not divisible by 9

273 -> 2 + 7 + 3 -> 12 -> 1 + 2 -> 3; not divisible by 9

261 -> 2 + 6 + 1 -> 9; divisible by 9

Please note that we could just say that 11 is not divisible by 9, but I wanted to show that we can do it again - nothing stops us and it still works.

To know why this method works, note that a number ABC is equal to:

100 * A + 10 * B + C = 99 * A + 9 * B + (A + B + C) = 9*(11*A + B) + (A + B + C)

And we know that 9*(11*A + B) is divisible by 9 because it's literally 9 times something. So A+B+C is equal to ABC minus something divisible by 9, and that proves what we needed.

Answer:

Simplify x6/7

4/5 x x6/7

Simplify 4/5

4/5 x x6/7

Finally the answer

4x6/35

Answer:

Options 2, 4 and 6 are True.

Step-by-step explanation:

Triangle MNO is dilated by a scale factor of [tex]\frac{3}{2}[/tex] centered at M(0, 6).

Rule to be followed to dilate the vertices of the given triangle,

(x, y) → (kx, ky)

Here, k = scale factor

By this rule vertices of the new triangle M'N'O' will be,

M(0, 6) → M'(0, 6) [Coordinates of M' will remain same as M because center of dilation is point M]

N(-4, -4) → N'(-6, -6)

O(6, -2) → O'(9, -3)

Option 1

M'N' is shorter than MN

Distance between M and N = [tex]\sqrt{(0+4)^2+(6+4)^2}[/tex]

                                              = 10.77

Distance between M' and N' = [tex]\sqrt{(0+6)^2+(6+6)^2}[/tex]

                                                = 13.42

Therefore M'N' > MN

Therefore, Option A is False.

Option 2

ON is shorter than O'N'

True.

Option 3

OM is longer than O'M'

False

Option 4

ON is parallel to O'N'

Since OM and MN are dilated with the same scale factor, O'N' will be parallel to ON.

True.

Option 5

OM is parallel than O'M'

Since, O'M' is the dilated form of OM,

Therefore, all the points (O, M and M') will be in a straight line.

False

Option 6

M'N' coincide with MN

True.

Therefore, Options 2, 4 and 6 are True.

Answer:

Yes, 3x4=12 and 4x3=12

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

Yes

Step-by-step explanation:

3 × 4 = 12

4 × 3 = 12

its x4 got it thanks give me brainliest

Answer:

distance between these point is 8

Step-by-step explanation:

d=

[tex] \sqrt{( 3- - 5) ^{2} + (3 - 3)^{2}} [/tex]

Answer:

8 is the distance between them

FYI distance formula is the square root of (x2 -x1)^2 = (y2- y1)^2

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

3 texts by madelyn, there were 2 texts from aubrey

Step-by-step explanation:

the ratio of maddie to aubrey was 18:12 which is 3:2

so 3 by maddie = 2 by aubrey

i used maddie because its shorter

Answer:

6 + 6 is 12 and 12 + 6 is 18 so i think its for every 6 text sent and then 6 again (6 in both boxes)

Step-by-step explanation:

adore your sasha pfp

Answer:

a.

Step-by-step explanation:

because "six hundered one" is 601 and "five hundredths" is .05 so the only number with both those 2 is a so the awnser is a.

Answer:

Yes, they can only have acute angles (all measure 60°)

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

There are

____________________

#IndonesianPride - kexcvi

Answer:

B. 12

Step-by-step explanation:

First, we need the degrees for A. So, cosx = 5/13    =    67.4

Now it will be easy to solve a. tan67.4° = a/5    =   12.011728511....

we round it to the nearest tenth and we get 12.

Step-by-step explanation:

By pythagoras theoram

[tex]c = \sqrt{a2 + b2} [/tex]

Step-by-step explanation:

x-3=14

x=14+3

x=17

verification

x(17)-3=14

17-3=14

14=14

Answer:

56

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

haach f,f msfmavfb

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

He will charge $28.

Step-by-step explanation:

We know that Jamal charges $3.50 per square yard.

Now we need to find the area in the image, it may be kinda hard to see it, but we can think of the image as a rectangle of 4yd by 3yd where we subtracted the area of a square of side length equal to 2yd.

The area of the rectangle is:

A = 4yd*3yd = 12 yd^2

And the area of the square is:

a = (2yd)^2 = 4 yd^2

The area of our image (equal to the difference between the area of the rectangle and the area of the square) is:

Area = A - a = 12 yd^2 - 4 yd^2 = 8 yd^2

Area = 8 yd^2

And he charges $3.50 per square yard, then for 8 square yards he charges 8 times that amount, which is:

C = 8*$3.50 = $28

Answer:

A) The test statistic is approximately 7.5056

B) E. There is no evidence that diet is independent of backfat thickness

Step-by-step explanation:

The given data are;

The sample mean for pigs raised on Diet 1, [tex]\overline x_1[/tex] = 3.63 cm

The sample SD for pigs raised on Diet 1, s₁ = 0.29 cm

The number of pigs in the sample for pigs raised on Diet 1, n₁ = 18

The sample mean for pigs raised on Diet 2,  [tex]\overline x_2[/tex] = 3.37 m

The sample SD for pigs raised on Diet 2, s₂ = 0.25 cm

The number of pigs in the sample for pigs raised on Diet 2, n₂ = 18

The pooled SE = 0.09

A) The test statistic is given by the following formula;

[tex]t=\dfrac{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})}{\sqrt{\dfrac{s_{1}^{2} }{n_{1}}-\dfrac{s _{2}^{2}}{n_{2}}}}[/tex]

Therefore, we have;

[tex]t=\dfrac{(3.63-3.37)}{\sqrt{\dfrac{0.29^{2} }{18}-\dfrac{0.25^{2}}{18}}} \approx 7.5056[/tex]

The test statistic, t ≈ 7.5056

B) The degrees of freedom, df = n₁ - 1 = 18 - 1 = 17

At a confidence level of 95%, the critical value is 2.11

Given that the value of the test statistics tic if larger than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a difference in the backfat of the pigs on different diet

Therefore, there is no evidence that diet is independent of backfat thickness

Answer:

18.84

Step-by-step explanation: