1.
The equation of the line having x-intercept -3/2, y-intercept 3/4 is
1) 3x + 2y - 6 = 0
2) 2x - 4y + 3 = 0
3) 2x + 3y - 5 = 0
4) 4x - 3y - 12 = 0
O
1)
2)
O
3)
O
4)​

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

22

Answer: x is 8/5

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

x = [tex]\frac{8}{5}[/tex]

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

[tex]\frac{13x+12x}{4}[/tex] = 10 ( multiply both sides by 4 to clear the fraction )

25x = 40 ( divide both sides by 25 )

x = [tex]\frac{40}{25}[/tex] = [tex]\frac{8}{5}[/tex]

Answer:

Question (A) firgue b is pallorgram

Question ( B) Only A is a rentengle

Question (C) is already right

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

I really dont know so u do it

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:  It's 29 degrees.

Answer:

I mean I don't know your options, but the answer is probably something like y=180x

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

1440

Step-by-step explanation:

Sum= (180)(8)=1440

Better:

Sum= (x-2)(180)

x represents the number of sides

So it would be

sum=(10-2)(180)

The answer then would be 1440

Answer:

it's D because in a graph y=3/4x-2 is not possible

Answer:

e = 16

Step-by-step explanation:

-5e-4e = -144

-9e = -144

e = 16

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

What’s your Question?

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

angle don+angle gil=90°

don+ 74°=90°

don=90°-74°

don=16°

angle e + angle a=180°

128°+angle a=180°

angle a=180°-128°

angle a=52°

Answer:

1. 16°

2. 52°

Step-by-step explanation:

So!! Complementary angles add up to 90 degrees, and supplementary angles add up to 180 degrees. With this, it should be really easy. To find the measure of angle DON:

m∠DON + m∠OIL = 90°

m∠DON + 74°=90°

m∠DON=16°

For the measure of angle A:

m∠A+m∠E=180°

m∠A+128°=180°

m∠A=52°

Hope this helped!

Answer:

a, 112/8

b, $14, found it by dividing

c, 270/8. Now he should charge $33.75. This is correct because 33.75*8=270

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

This is your answer

Answer:  39.09 km per hour average

Step-by-step explanation:

add total distance and divide by total time

(30+400)/(5.5+5.5)

430/11=39.0909

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

11 +5x=y

y-11-5x=0

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

The deck of 52 playing cards is broadly classified into 2 which are further divided into 2 divisions.

Red(26 cards) and Black(26 cards).

The red cards are further divided into diamonds♦️ (13 cards) and hearts♥️ (13 cards).

The black cards are further divided into clubs♣️(13 cards) and spades♠️(13 cards).

In each division of 13 cards classified above, there are/is-

3 face cards- King, Queen, Jack

One ace card

9 number cards(numbered from 2–10)

So, there are twelve face cards in a deck.

When three cards are picked, you may pick any three face cards out of the 12 face cards.

P(getting 3 face cards)=

No. of favourable face cards/ Total cards I.e,

12C3/52C3. By solving it we get 22/22100

=0.00995

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

Student ticket: $12, Adult ticket: $14

Equations: 260=10x+10y, 94=2x+5y

Step-by-step explanation:

Set adult tickets as y

Set student tickets as x

First day: Total made is 260 so set that equal to 10x + 10y

--> 260=10x+10y

Second day: Total made is 94 so set that equal to 2x + 5y

--> 94=2x+5y

I find it easier to have simplified terms so simplify (divide by 2) the first equation to get: 130=5x+5y

All you have to do now is solve for the two variables.

94=2x+5y - (130=5x+5y) --> x=12, y=14

Answer:

c.

hope it helps :)

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

B. Pi

Step-by-step explanation:

Pi is an irrational number---you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal. This means you need an approximate value for Pi. The simplest approximation for Pi is just 3.

Answer:

b

Step-by-step explanation:

you have to find the mean of the equation

Schachter's two-factor theory claims that individual labels emotions based on how they are interpreted.

The Schacter two-factor theory states that emotion is the product of the interplay of two variables:

This theory suggests that physiological excitation is cognitively understood and interpreted within the setting of each encounter, resulting in the emotional experience.

The relationship between bodily arousal and how we cognitively perceive that arousal is the subject of the two-factor theory of emotion.

Learn more about Schachter's two factor theory here:

https://brainly.com/question/7118820

Answer:

James-Lange theory

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer: C.

Step-by-step explanation: divide -27 by 3

Answer:

The answers would be 5.42 and 5.1.

Step-by-step explanation:

The diagram shows 5.39, so those answers would be more than the diagram shows.

Answer:

20/132

Step-by-step explanation:

There is a 5/12 chance of event A happening, Event B has a 4/11 chance happening so you multiply the chances together and get  20/132

Answer:

bc  if it has no points  it will go on infinitely

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

The answer is: Yes

Step-by-step explanation:

1. Substitute the 2's for the x's.

2. Substitute the 3's for the y's

3. You get 4-9= -5

4. Do the same for the second problem.

5. 8-12= -4

6. Both problems are correct once the substitutions are made, therefore the answer is "Yes".

Answer:

REASONS TO KEEP OUR PROMISES

1. Introduction

Promises are valuable because they allow us to receive assurances that others will act in

certain ways and give these assurances ourselves. Assurances are worthwhile because they

can give us peace of mind, we can use them to establish and stabilize private schemes of

cooperation and, anyway, we often have good reason to want people to do (or not do) certain

things. The obligation to keep a promise derives in some way from the value that assurances

provide.1

Accounts of our fiduciary obligations divide over the role they assign to social practices.

David Hume and John Rawls argue that promising creates in others the relevant assurances

only if there exists a social practice of promising in which most everyone knows that people

generally fulfill their promises. These philosophers think that our fiduciary obligations

depend essentially on an institution of promising, but they disagree about why we have an

obligation not to violate its rules. Hume seems to think that promise-breaking is wrong in

virtue of impartial disapproval towards acts that undermine the practice of promising while

Rawls argues that it is wrong to break a promise because doing so exploits a just institution of promising from which we have voluntarily benefited.2

In contrast to these practice views,

Thomas Scanlon maintains that our obligation to keep a promise does not necessarily depend

on any social convention; instead, he argues that we ought to keep our promises because we

have a duty not to frustrate certain expectations that our promising can induce in others.3

These three views are often presented as competing accounts of the most fundamental

reason why we should keep our promises. I believe that none of them, however, can explain

our fiduciary obligations in all (or most) cases that involve binding promises. Scanlon’s

expectation view is subject to a fatal circularity in paradigm cases in which our only reason

to keep a promise is an awareness that, having made a promise, we are obligated to keep it.

Hume’s view cannot explain why we ought to keep a promise the breaking of which is

unlikely to undermine the institution of promising. And Rawls’ view (along with Hume’s)

cannot explain why it is wrong to break promises that are made when no social practice of

promising exists. Moreover, neither practice views nor expectation views alone can fully

explain the wrongs involved in breaking promises that both invoke the rules of a social

practice of promising and lead others to form certain expectations about our actions. This

suggests that there is no single, fundamental reason why we should keep our promises.

After arguing for these claims, I go on to sketch an alternative account according to

which a family of fiduciary principles, including ones similar to those suggested by Hume,

Rawls and Scanlon, explains why we ought to keep our promises. A principle is a fiduciary

principle if it explains why one or more promises are binding. On this view, no single fiduciary principle explains why all binding promises generate obligations and often one or

more fiduciary principle will apply in a given case, possibly over-determining why we should

keep that promise. For example, principles of the sort proposed by Rawls and Scanlon would

each give us sufficient reason to keep a promise that invokes the rules of a just institution of

promising and also arouses certain expectations in others. A pluralist account of this sort, I

argue, provides a better framework for understanding the nature of our fiduciary obligations.

Answer:

[tex]Amount = Rs4420[/tex]

Step-by-step explanation:

Given

[tex]Principal = Rs4000[/tex]

[tex]Interest = Rs420[/tex]

Required

Determine the amount paid

This is calculated as:

[tex]Amount = Principal + Interest[/tex]

[tex]Amount = Rs4000 + Rs420[/tex]

[tex]Amount = Rs4420[/tex]