Let f be a function given by f(x)=-4x-1.
Find and simplify f(x+3)
Answer:
f=-
Step-by-step explanation:
Divide each term in f(x+3)=−4x−1 by x+3 and simplify.
Mark as brainlist if you find this helpful
ANSWER
EXPLANATION
From the given question, the cost of 1 game ticket is 107
Since the number of tickets is x
The total cost will be = cost multiplied by number of tickets
=
F(-1) =
Jutaານເພະາ
a. -4
b. -6
C. 2.
Answer:
A. -4
Step-by-step explanation:
F(-1) means we must plug the number "-1" in for each x.
F(x) = x^2 + 3x - 2
F(-1) = (-1)^2 + 3(-1) - 2
= 1 - 3 - 2
= -4
5 years repayment 11 years maintenance and electricity cost of $24.25
and $0.14, makes the total lifetime cost of the stove b. $2,166.53.
The cost of the stove = $986
Daily electricity cost = $0.14
Maintenance cost per year = $24.25
Annual Percentage Rate, APR, on the credit card = 9.26%
Number of years the balance was paid off = 5 years using identical monthly payments
Sales tax = 8.22%
Required:
Lifetime total cost of the stove
Solution:
Where;
r = 0.0926
n = 12 × 5 = 60
P = 1.0822 × $986 = $1,067.0492
Which gives;
Payment for the purchase ≈ 60 × $22.29 = $1337.4
Amount paid as electricity bill = $0.14 × 365 + 2 × $0.14 = $562.38
The maintenance cost = 11 × $24.25 = $266.75
Which gives;
The selection that gives the total cost is the is the option;
b. $2,166.53
Learn more about payment for a loan here:
Answer:
2166.53
Step-by-step explanation:
Price x 1.0822 = 1067.0492 <Price with tax
P= PV x i / 1- (1+i)^-n
^ x (identical monthly payments for 5 years aka 12 x 5)
average cost for electricity x (365 x years aka 11)
cost for maintenance x 11
Add all 3 answers
=2166.53
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.
Answer:
-11
Step-by-step explanation: