What is the area of the trapezoid?​

a. If G(t) = a (1 + r)ᵗ, then G(0) = a corresponds to the starting area of the glacier, which is given to be 142 acres. So a = 142.

The area of the glacier shrinks by 4.4% each year. This means that after 1 year, the area is reduced to

142 - (4.4% of 142) = 142 (1 - 0.044) ≈ 135.75 acres

After another year,

135.75 - (4.4% of 135.75) = 135.75 (1 - 0.044) ≈ 129.78 acres

or equivalently, 142 (1 - 0.044)² acres.

And so on. After t years, the glacier would have an area of

G(t) = 142 (1 - 0.044)ᵗ   ⇒   G(t) = 142 × 0.956ᵗ

b. If the year 2007 corresponds to t = 0, then 2012 refers to t = 5. Then the area of the glacier is

G(5) = 142 × 0.956⁵   ⇒   G(5) ≈ 113.39 acres

c. Simply take the difference between G(5) and G(0) :

G(5) - G(0) ≈ 142 - 113.39 ≈ 28.61 acres

d. The average rate of change of G(t) from 2007 to 2012 is given by the difference quotient of G(t) over the interval 0 ≤ t ≤ 5 :

[tex]ARC_{[2007,2012]} = \dfrac{G(5) - G(0)}{5 - 0} \approx \dfrac{113.39 - 142}5[/tex]

so that ARC ≈ -5.72 acres/year. This rate tells us that a little less than 6 acres of glacial ice is lost each year, based on the reduction over the first 5 years.

e. The year 2017 refers to t = 10, so now we compute

[tex]ARC_{[2012,2017]} = \dfrac{G(10) - G(5)}{10 - 5} \approx \dfrac{90.55-113.39}5[/tex]

which comes out to about ARC ≈ -4.57 acres/year. Since this rate is smaller than the ARC between 2007 and 2012, this means that the glacial ice is disappearing at a slower rate in later years.

Answer:

If you mean multiply I think

5y

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

b

Step-by-step explanation:

[tex]y=-x+3~~.....(i)\\\\y = 4x-2~~....(ii)\\\\\text{Substitute}~ y = -x+3~ \text{in equation (ii):}\\\\\\-x+3 = 4x-2\\\\\implies 4x +x = 3+2\\\\\implies 5x = 5\\\\\implies x = \dfrac 55 =1\\\\\\\text{Substitute x= 1 in equation (i):}\\\\y= -1 +3 = 2\\\\\text{Hence}~ (x,y)=(1,2)[/tex]

Answer:

b) g(x) = Five-sevenths (three-fifths) Superscript negative x

Step-by-step explanation:

both ranges are y<0, you can clearly see this if you plug all of the equations into a graphing calculator

A domain of a function has to do with the set of all possible inputs in a function and contains real numbers.

This refers to the relation or expression that has to do with a number of variables for example, "bx + c" is a function.

Hence, we can see that your question is incomplete so I gave you a general overview to help you get a better understanding of functions and domains.

Read more about functions and domains here:

https://brainly.com/question/1770447

#SPJ9

Answer:

Starting with ΔABC, draw the dilation image of the triangle with a center at the origin and a scale factor of two. Notice that every coordinate of the original triangle has been multiplied by the scale factor (x2). Dilations involve multiplication! Dilation with scale factor 2, multiply by 2.

Step-by-step explanation:

Make me brainlest.

[tex]\huge \bf༆ Answer ༄[/tex]

The given value can be expressed as ~

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation: The simplification calculator allows you to take a simple or complex expression and simplify and reduce the expression to it's simplest form.

Answer:

-4 x 6 + -4

-24 + -4

-28.. is your answer mark me brainlist bro plz

Answer:

-28

Step-by-step explanation:

-4(6)+(-4)

-24+(-4)

-28

Answer:

C

Step-by-step explanation: looks right

dont  trust it though

The polynomial [tex]3x^2+x-6x+3[/tex] is a prime because it is not factorized further and this can be determined by using the factorization method.

Check all the options in order to determine the given polynomial is prime or not.

A) [tex]x^4+3x^2-x^2-3[/tex]

Now, try to factorize the above polynomial.

[tex]x^4+3x^2-x^2-3=(x+1)(x-1)(x^2+3)[/tex]

The given polynomial is factorized further therefore, this polynomial is not a prime.

B) [tex]x^4-3x^2-x^2+3[/tex]

Now, try to factorize the above polynomial.

[tex]x^4-3x^2-x^2+3=(x+1)(x-1)(x^2-3)[/tex]

The given polynomial is factorized further therefore, this polynomial is not a prime.

C) [tex]3x^2+x-6x-2[/tex]

Now, try to factorize the above polynomial.

[tex]3x^2+x-6x-2=(3x+1)(x-2)[/tex]

The given polynomial is factorized further therefore, this polynomial is not a prime.

D)  [tex]3x^2+x-6x+3[/tex]

The given polynomial is not factorized further therefore, this polynomial is is a prime.

For more information, refer to the link given below:

https://brainly.com/question/17822016

Answer:

It should be 17.5 boxes I am not too sure If it is wrong please forgive me

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer: 7 boxes

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

23/99 or 0.22222222222222.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

23/99

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

none. they have already sold exactly $400,000 worth of computers and accessories

Answer:

C

Step-by-step explanation:

yeah-ya............... right?

Answer:

F. 30  G. 8

Step-by-step explanation:

F. 9 / 9 + 6 = 18 / BC

9 + 6 = 15

9 / 15 = 18 / BC

9 x 2 = 18

15 x 2 = 30

G. 9 / 6 = 12 / EC

9/6 reduces to 3/2

3/2 = 12/EC

3 x 4 = 12

2 x 4 = 8

Answer:

Look at other page answer is there

Step-by-step explanation:

Total area = 12 + 18 = 30cm²

Answer:

Area of the right angled triangle:-

= height × base ÷ 2

= 4 cm × 6 cm ÷ 2

= 4 cm × 3 cm

= 12 cm²

Area of the rectangle:-

= length × breadth

= 6 cm × 3 cm

= 18 cm²

Area of the figure:-

= 12 cm² + 18 cm²

= 30 cm²

Answer: 0.9

Step-by-step explanation:

Mark me branliest please

Answer:

$40-$15= $25 Rania has $25 dollars left

Step-by-step explanation:

Since Rania earned $40 for her birthday and then she spent $15 dollars at the movies, that means that 40-15=25 so she has 25 dollars left.

Answer:

D: f(x) = (x+6)(x+6)

Step-by-step explanation:

The function has a multiplicity of 2, meaning the factor appears twice. So, x=-6 will be the only x-intercept.

Step-by-step explanation:

30%=0.3

3%=0.03

1/300=0.003333

30000/100=300

Therefore the order is:

0.003;1/300;3%, 30%;1.3;30;30000/100

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

30%=0.3

3%=0.03

1/300=0.003333

30000/100=300

Therefore the order is:

0.003;1/300;3%, 30%;1.3;30;30000/100

Answer:

24 units

Step-by-step explanation:

I dont know if im right but hope this helps!

Answer:

250 minutes

Step-by-step explanation:

90-75=15

15/0.06=250

Answer:

x = 250 minutes

Step-by-step explanation:

The equation for this problem can be set up as follows-

Y = 0.06x+75

y = total phone bill

x= number of minutes on his phone

If Ethan can spend a total of $90 maximum, then y = 90

90 = 0.06x +75 solve for X to determine how many minutes he can be on his phone to reach a $90 total.

x = 250 minutes

Answer:

a. 18

Step-by-step explanation:

a= 2

b= 3

[tex]ab^{2} =(2)(3)^{2} =2(9)=18[/tex]

Hope this helps

a=2

b=3

Now

Answer:

200 candles

Step-by-step explanation:

20*10 = 200

Answer an essay on nothing

Step-by-step explanation:

In philosophy there is a lot of emphasis on what exists. We call this ontology, which means, the study of being. What is less often examined is what does not exist.

It is understandable that we focus on what exists, as its effects are perhaps more visible. However, gaps or non-existence can also quite clearly have an impact on us in a number of ways. After all, death, often dreaded and feared, is merely the lack of existence in this world (unless you believe in ghosts). We are affected also by living people who are not there, objects that are not in our lives, and knowledge we never grasp.

Upon further contemplation, this seems quite odd and raises many questions. How can things that do not exist have such bearing upon our lives? Does nothing have a type of existence all of its own? And how do we start our inquiry into things we can’t interact with directly because they’re not there? When one opens a box, and exclaims “There is nothing inside it!”, is that different from a real emptiness or nothingness? Why is nothingness such a hard concept for philosophy to conceptualize?

Let us delve into our proposed box, and think inside it a little. When someone opens an empty box, they do not literally find it devoid of any sort of being at all, since there is still air, light, and possibly dust present. So the box is not truly empty. Rather, the word ‘empty’ here is used in conjunction with a prior assumption. Boxes were meant to hold things, not to just exist on their own. Inside they might have a present; an old family relic; a pizza; or maybe even another box. Since boxes have this purpose of containing things ascribed to them, there is always an expectation there will be something in a box. Therefore, this situation of nothingness arises from our expectations, or from our being accustomed. The same is true of statements such as “There is no one on this chair.” But if someone said, “There is no one on this blender”, they might get some odd looks. This is because a chair is understood as something that holds people, whereas a blender most likely not.

The same effect of expectation and corresponding absence arises with death. We do not often mourn people we only might have met; but we do mourn those we have known. This pain stems from expecting a presence and having none. Even people who have not experienced the presence of someone themselves can still feel their absence due to an expectation being confounded. Children who lose one or both of their parents early in life often feel that lack of being through the influence of the culturally usual idea of a family. Just as we have cultural notions about the box or chair, there is a standard idea of a nuclear family, containing two parents, and an absence can be noted even by those who have never known their parents.

This first type of nothingness I call ‘perceptive nothingness’. This nothingness is a negation of expectation: expecting something and being denied that expectation by reality. It is constructed by the individual human mind, frequently through comparison with a socially constructed concept.

Pure nothingness, on the other hand, does not contain anything at all: no air, no light, no dust. We cannot experience it with our senses, but we can conceive it with the mind. Possibly, this sort of absolute nothing might have existed before our universe sprang into being. Or can something not arise from nothing? In which case, pure nothing can never have existed.

If we can for a moment talk in terms of a place devoid of all being, this would contain nothing in its pure form. But that raises the question, Can a space contain nothing; or, if there is space, is that not a form of existence in itself?

This question brings to mind what’s so baffling about nothing: it cannot exist. If nothing existed, it would be something. So nothing, by definition, is not able to ‘be’.

Is absolute nothing possible, then? Perhaps not. Perhaps for example we need something to define nothing; and if there is something, then there is not absolutely nothing. What’s more, if there were truly nothing, it would be impossible to define it. The world would not be conscious of this nothingness. Only because there is a world filled with Being can we imagine a dull and empty one. Nothingness arises from Somethingness, then: without being to compare it to, nothingness has no existence. Once again, pure nothingness has shown itself to be negation.

Answer:

55%

Step-by-step explanation:

The percent change formula is written like this:

[tex]|\frac{change - original }{original}|[/tex]. In this scenario, the "change" or new value is 31, because it is this season, and the original is last season. Now, 31-20 = 11, and 11/20 = 55%.

Answer:

I believe the answer is 5