kim and courtney share a 20 ounce box of cereal. By the end of the week kim has eat 2/5 of the box and courtney has eaten 1/10 of the box of cereal what fraction of the box is left
Answers
Answer: 1/2
Step-by-step explanation:
Kim ate 2/5 which is also equal to 4/10 and Courtney has eaten 1/10
4/10 + 1/10 = 5/10 = 1/2
Related Questions
Which expression is equivalent to the given expression? 2x - 11x-6 A. 2(x – 3) (x + 1) B. (2x + 3)(x- 2) C. (2x+ 1)(x- 6) D. 2(x + 3)(x- 2)
Graph the line 8x + 2y =16
Suppose an interval estimate for the population mean was 62.84 to 69.46. The population standard deviation was assumed to be 6.50, and a sample of 100 observations was used. The mean of the sample was: A. 56.34 B. 62.96 C. 6.62 D. 66.15
SADIDA NEEDED TO REORDERSHIRTS FOR HER CLOTHING STORE.SHE ORDERED 63 MEDIUM SHIRTSAND 27 LARGE SHIRTS, WHAT WASTHE RATIO OF MEDIUM TO LARGESHIRTS?
Also it's a made up question
Answers
PEMDAS = Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction
First, subtract the numbers in the parentheses, then multiply by 11.
(12 - 9) = (3)
3 x 11 = 33
19 + 11 - 12^2 ÷ 3(33) - 7
Now, just multiply 33 by 3, and then square 12 (12 x 12).
19 + 11 - 144 ÷ 99 - 7
Now, you can divide 144 by 99, this is an infinite number, so..
144 ÷ 99 = 1.455
19 + 11 - 1.455 - 7
Finally add, then subtract.
30 - 1.455 - 7
28.545 - 7
The final answer is 21.545.
Answers
Answer:
pretty sure the answer is 5 hours and 30 minutes
Answers
Answer:
D
Step-by-step explanation:
-16p + 37 = 49 -21p
-16p +21p = 49 - 37
5p = 12
p = 12/5
A.
-55 + 12p = 5p + 16
7p = 71
p = 71/7
B.
2+1.25p = -3.75p +10
5p = 8
p = 8/5
C.
-14 + 6p = -9 -6p
12p = 5
p = 5/12
D.
1.5p - 5 + 2.25p = 7 - 1.25p
5p = 12
p = 12/5
Answer:
d
Step-by-step explanation:
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
Answers
The inequality that represents this scenario is:
The complete question describes the use of word problems to represent inequalities. The $21 means that there is a limit to the number of stops she can take using the train.
From the complete question, we have the following parameters:
Initial Fee = $5
Rate per stop = $2.75
Amount = $21
The inequality that represents the scenario is calculated using:
Initial Fee + Rate * Number of stops <= Amount
We use <= because the total charges must not exceed the amount.
Let the number of stops be x.
The above formula becomes
Hence, the inequality that represents this scenario is:
Read more at:
Answer:
a and 5
Step-by-step explanation:
Answers
Answer: A
Step-by-step explanation:
For this problem, we can automatically eliminate B and D. We know this because of the inequality. The inequality is less than or equal to. anything that has an equal to sign is a solid line because any point on the line itself is a solution. If it was a < sign, it shows that the solution is less than, and not equal to. Therefore, the line would be dotted/dashed.
Now that we have figured out what type of line we have, we can see where the shading is located. To do so, we must make all the same variables go on the same side to see the equation.
y ≤ x²-4x+2
From this, we see that y is less than or equal to. This tells us that the shading is under the line. Under the line, y goes towards negative infinity, which makes y less than the line. Above the line, y goes towards positive infinity, which makes y greater than the line. That would make the inequality y≥x²-4x+2. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Answers
Answer:
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.
Step-by-step explanation: using the syllogism rules.
Premises 1 (P1) = Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity,
Premises 2 (P2) = so some persons invulnerable to arrest and prosecution are foreign emissaries
Conclusion (C) = because no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
From the argument:
P1 uses "some", that means it's not "all" foreign emissaries person that does not have diplomatic immunity. This means that some other foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity
P2 uses "some", that means it's affirms to that part of P1 which states that some foreign emissaries have diplomatic immunity.
The conclusion is valid because the part of P2 which states that some foreign emissaries are vulnerable to arrest, which affirms with P1 which states that Some foreign emissaries are persons without diplomatic immunity. That means no persons with diplomatic immunity are persons vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. This conclusion literally means that if you don't have diplomatic immunity, you are vulnerable to arrest and prosecution.
Therefore;
P2 affirms P1 and the conclusion is in the same direction.
P1--->P2--->C
This argument is valid.