Multiplying and Dividing Rational Expressions.

Answer:

72.5 km/h

Step-by-step explanation:

Multiply the km/h by how many hours your going at that speed/total number of hours on trip.

(90x(3.5/8))+(80x(2/8))+(70x(1.5/8))

39.375+20.5+13.125

72.5km/h

The

Answer:

is

Step-by-step explanation:

C. 4

Exponents first

Answer:

See Below.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given two intersecting circles with centers M and N.

And we want to prove that: I) PQ ⊥ MN and that II) PR = RQ.

Since MP and MQ are radii of the same circle:

[tex]MP\cong MQ[/tex]

Likewise, since NP and NQ are radii of the same circle:

[tex]NP\cong NQ[/tex]

And by the Reflexive Property:

[tex]PQ\cong PQ[/tex]

Therefore, by SSS Congruence:

[tex]\Delta MPN\cong \Delta MQN[/tex]

By CPCTC:

[tex]\displaystyle \angle PMN\cong \angle QMN[/tex]

And by the Reflexive Property:

[tex]MR\cong MR[/tex]

And since they are the radii of the same circle:

[tex]MP\cong MQ[/tex]

Therefore, by SAS Congruence:

[tex]\Delta MPR\cong \Delta MQR[/tex]

Therefore, by CPCTC:

[tex]PR\cong RQ[/tex]

Note that PQ is a chord in Circle M.

Therefore:

[tex]\text{Segment $MN$ bisects chord $PQ$}[/tex]

In a circle, a segment that passes through the center of the circle that is perpendicular to a chord also bisects the chord.

And conversely, a segment that passes through the center of a circle that bisects a chord in the circle is also perpendicular to the chord.

So:

[tex]\displaystyle PQ\perp MN[/tex]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

First step is to prove triangle MPN ad MQN are congruent.

MP=MQ, radius of circle M

NP=NQ, radius of circle N

we have two S in SAS  and for A, we need to prove angle MPN = MQN

consider triangle QMP, it is isosceles so angle MPQ = MQP

consider triangle QNP; it is isosceles so angle  QPN = PQN

combining the two above

angle MPN = MPQ+QPN = MQP+PQN = MQN

By SAS, triangle MPN and MQN are congruent

By symmetry, MN is perpendicular to PQ

It also disects PQ so PR = RQ

Answer:

5.25 hours or 5 1/4 hours

Step-by-step explanation:

According to the scenario, calculation of given data are as follows,

Total time = 4 1/2 hours or 270 mins

Total payment = $27

First we calculate the time for $1, then

So, $27 = 270 mins

$1 = 270 ÷ 27 = 10 mins

Now, we can calculate total time in $31.50 by using following formula,

Total time in $31.50 = 10 mins × 31.50

= 315 mins

= 5.25 hours or 5 1/4 hours

Given:

The point is (1,-2).

To find:

The quadrant in which the point (1,-2) lies.

Solution:

We know that,

In first quadrant, both coordinates are positive, i.e., (x,y).

In second quadrant, x coordinate is negative but the y-coordinate is positive, i.e., (-x,y).

In third quadrant, both coordinates are negative, i.e., (-x,-y).

In fourth quadrant, x coordinate is positive but the y-coordinate is negative, i.e., (x,-y).

Where, x and y are two non-negative values.

In the given point (1,-2) the x coordinate is positive but the y-coordinate is negative.

Therefore, the point (1,-2) lies in fourth quadrant.

Answer:

I'm pretty sure it's 15 for orange and 30 for blue

Answer:

18 eggs

Step-by-step explanation:

first we divide 24 by 8 to see how many eggs are in one omlete

24/8=3

Now we take 3 times 6 ( because there is 6 people you are making it for)

6x3=18

18 eggs

If you need more help I would love to help!

Answer:

18 eggs

Step-by-step explanation:

1: x/24=6/8

2: 24*6=144-(1st step for cross multiplication)

3: 144/8=18-(2nd step for cross multiplication)

4: 18 eggs-(final answer)      

Cross multiplication: Write your 2(or more) equivilent fractions, and write your variable as x or any other letter. If your variable is in the numerator, take the denominator and multiply it with the other fraction's numerator and divide your answer with the denominator of the other fraction. If x is in the denominator, switch your variable with the other fractions numerator and solve the same way you would if the variable was in the numerator-(sorry if I made it to complex, but the idea is really simple:)

Answer:

x = 2

Step-by-step explanation:

5 ÷ 2 1/2 =

5 x 2/5 = 10/5 = 2

Answer:

I think it is 2

Step-by-step explanation:

5 ÷ 2 1/2 =2

Answer:

Solution given

:[tex] \sqrt{216 \times 6} [/tex]=[tex] \sqrt{36²} [/tex]=±36 is your answer

Answer:

t ≤ 10

Step-by-step explanation:

To solve the inequality, simplify it.

-3t + 9 ≥ -21

Subtract 9 from both sides.

-3t ≥ -30

Divide by -3. When dividing by a negative, flip the inequality sign.

The answer is C, t ≤ 10.

Answer:

A

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

C

Step-by-step explanation:

The answer is 1, you need to do the Math correctly.

Answer:

C=2πr

C=2π(1.9) cm

C=11.94 cm

Step-by-step explanation:

radius of a circle (r)=1.9 cm

Circumference of a circle (C)=?

We know that,

C=2πr

C=2π(1.9) cm

C=11.94 cm

So, the circumference of the circle is 11.94 cm.

Answer:

[tex]P(Not\ Star) =\frac{2}{3}[/tex]

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

See attachment

Required

Theoretical probability that a roll will not land on a star

From the attachment, we have:

[tex]n = 12[/tex] --- Total space

[tex]Star = 4[/tex]

So, the theoretical probability that a roll will land on a star is:

[tex]P(Star) = \frac{n(Star)}{n}[/tex]

[tex]P(Star) = \frac{4}{12}[/tex]

[tex]P(Star) = \frac{1}{3}[/tex]

Using the complement rule, the probability that it will not land on a star is:

[tex]P(Not\ Star) = 1 - P(Star)[/tex]

[tex]P(Not\ Star) = 1 - \frac{1}{3}[/tex]

Take LCM

[tex]P(Not\ Star) =\frac{3-1}{3}[/tex]

[tex]P(Not\ Star) =\frac{2}{3}[/tex]

Answer:

Look at the photo below

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

17,000m

or 7 km

Step-by-step explanation:

distance covered in 4 days = total distance x 2 x 4 days

convert the total distance to meters

(1000m x 2) + 125 = 2125m

total distance = 2125 x 2 x 4 = 17,000m or 7km

Answer: you are given the equation 3.5x - 2 so you will plug in your x-values (3,5,8)

Step-by-step explanation:

1. 3.5(3)-2

2. 3.5(5)-2= 15.5.

3. 3.5(8)-2 =26

~This is your table ~

X-3 Y-8.5

X-5 Y-15.5

X-8 Y-26

I tried to explain it on here. Good luck !!

Answer:

360 square inches

Step-by-step explanation:

There are 360 square inches in 2.5 square feet.

To find out how many square inches are in 2.5 square feet, we need to multiply the number of square feet by the conversion factor.

Given that there are 144 square inches in 1 square foot, we can set up a proportion to solve for the number of square inches in 2.5 square feet:

1 square foot = 144 square inches

2.5 square feet = x square inches

Setting up the proportion:

1 square foot / 144 square inches = 2.5 square feet / x square inches

Cross-multiplying the proportions:

(1 square foot) x square inches = 144 square inches  (2.5 square feet)

Simplifying the equation:

x square inches = 144 square inches (2.5 square feet)

Multiplying the values:

x square inches = 360 square inches

Therefore, there are 360 square inches in 2.5 square feet.

To learn more about multiplication;

https://brainly.com/question/19634536

#SPJ6

Answer:

x=10  y=20

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

33°

Step-by-step explanation:

cos(x) = 21/25

[tex]cos^{-1}(21/25)[/tex] ≈ 32.86°

to the nearest whole number, that would be ≈ 33°

Answer:

TY

Step-by-step explanation:

Nice

Thanks for the free Poi nts!

Question isn't well formatted, however. From what can be gathered form the question :

Options are given

Answer:

4(1.5 * 16.50) + (1.5 * 9.60)

$113.40

Step-by-step explanation:

Last year:

Cost of full page ad = $16.50

Cost of half page ad = $9.60

50% increase in ad price this year :

Price, this year :

Full page = 1.50 * 16. 50 = $24.75

Half page = 1.50 * $9.60 = $14.4

Expression :

4(1.5 * 16.50) + (1.5 * 9.60)

Cost of a 4 and 1/2 page ad :

Full page = 4 * $24.75 = $99

Half page = 1 * $14.4 = $14.40

Total cost = $(99 + 14.40) = $113.40

Answer:

https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=(x%2B10)%5E%7B2%7D%20

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

Y = 5.8

X = 2.887

Step-by-step explanation:

to get X

to get Y

Answer:

y - 5.8

x - 2.887

pleasee mark Brainliest

Answer:

78 ft squared

Step-by-step explanation:

To find the area of trapezoid, we could use this formula:

.5*height*(sum of bases)

We know both the base lengths. They are 10 and 16 ft.

The height can be found by looking at that right triangle whose base is (16-10) ft or 6 ft.

So we want to find the height which is opposite the 45 degree angle and we have the adjacent side's measurement of 6ft.

This has the tangent ratio written all over it since tangent of an angle is opposite side's measurement over adjacent side's measurement.

tan(45)=height/6

1=height/6

6=height

6ft=height

The answer is:

.5*height*(sum of bases)

.5*6 ft*(10 ft+16 ft)

3 ft(26 ft)

78 ft squared

Note: That one right triangle is an isosceles right triangle so we didn't need trigonometry.

Answer: I feel d.u.m.b. when there's a genius here  

Most likely your gonna fail

Average 50-75 range

Step-by-step explanation:

Mostly luck in this percentage thou

Thats common sense

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Computer languages love this kind of question. You could run it a million times and the computer would bring back an answer in under 10 seconds.

Let us suppose that 4 is the correct answer for all 5 questions.

Run the simulation 1000000 times. There is only 1 answer that is acceptable

select a random number from 1 to 4

do this 5 times

If all five random numbers are 4 then add 1 to counter which keeps track of the number of times 4 was chosen 5 times (it will be pretty small).

End by displaying the number of times 4 was chosen 5 times

Divide by 1 million.  

In running the simulation, I described using Delphi it ran the simulation in under 1 second. That is, took the test 1 million times.

I'm going to save this answer and if I can edit the  question I'll tell you what I got. If not, I suppose I could put it in a comment.

The experimental answer I got was 993 which is awfully close to 1/1000 which is approximately the theoretical answer. So my simulation that I described will work really well.

The theoretical answer is

1/4  *  1/4  * 1/4 * 1/4 *1/4 = 1 / 1024  So actually 1/1000 (which my simulation nearly got) is really kind of close.

There are other ways of doing this simulation.