I need help solving this problem, please respond as fast as you can.

-7 – 3x = 1x + 4(2 + x)

x = -15/8

General Formulas and Concepts:

Pre-Algebra

Order of Operations: BPEMDAS

Equality Properties

Algebra I

Step-by-step explanation:

Step 1: Define

-7 - 3x = 1x + 4(2 + x)

Step 2: Solve for x

There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that population mean number of times that adults go out for dinner each week is less than 1.5

Step-by-step explanation:

From the question we are told that

   The  population mean is  less than  1.5

   The sample size is  n  =  7

   The sample data is   2, 0, 1, 5, 0, 2, and 3

Generally the sample mean is mathematically represented as  

=>  

=>  

Generally the standard deviation is mathematically represented as

=>  

=>  

The null hypothesis is  

The alternative hypothesis is

Generally the test statistics is mathematically represented as

=>    

=>

Generally the p-value is mathematically represented as

From the z-table  

So

From the values obtained we see that  

Here there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that population mean number of times that adults go out for dinner each week is less than 1.5

ITs B. Emergency

Becuase I just took that test on Apex and its right

B.  

Explanation:

I can see how this might be confusing as predicament would also work, but emergency is the better fit in this sentence.  

ITs B. Emergency

Becuase I just took that test on Apex and its right

Well, Humanity's early fire-starting tools may have been dangerous because in the text is says, "It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions." This is dangerous because it would spew fire in all directions and if you think about it, the fire would hit something and then that thing would catch on fire. Lets say you were using the match inside your house. When you strike the match, a spark flies onto the wood floor and your house goes up in flames and you are stuck inside the house with no exit or escape. This may or may not happen, but because of the fire not being contained, there was a chance that you would be harmed.

hope this helped

Incomplete question. Here's the full text:

By S. E. Forman

1911

THE MATCH

There never was a time when the world was without fire, but there was a time when men did not know how to kindle fire; and after they learned how to kindle one, it was a long, long time before they learned how to kindle one easily. In these days we can kindle a fire without any trouble because we can easily get a match; but we must remember that the match is one of the most wonderful things in the world, and that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make one. Let us learn the history of this familiar little object, the match.

Fire was first given to man by nature itself. When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match. In the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark. The first method, then, of getting fire for use was to light sticks of wood at a flame kindled by nature—by a volcano, perhaps, or by a stroke of lightning. These firebrands were carried to the home and used in kindling the fires there. The fire secured in this way was carefully guarded and was kept burning as long as possible. But the flame, however faithfully watched, would sometimes be extinguished. A sudden gust of wind or a sudden shower would put it out. Then a new firebrand would have to be secured, and this often meant a long journey and a deal of trouble.

In 1827, John Walker, a druggist in a small English town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. The druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. It is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. Although Walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. In a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. The match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. It would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. This was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar.

How does the author convince readers that the match was "the most wonderful thing in the world"? Please respond in three to five complete sentences, using evidence from the text to support your answer.

Explanation:

We note the author's intriguing statement at the outset when he said "that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make" a match.

Also, he further highlighted how problematic it was to depend on nature when he said "in the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark".

To express the problems further, the author also says that they would have to guard the fire but the fire would still go out sometimes and then they would have to go on long and difficult journeys.

Incomplete question. Here's the full text:

By S. E. Forman

1911

THE MATCH

There never was a time when the world was without fire, but there was a time when men did not know how to kindle fire; and after they learned how to kindle one, it was a long, long time before they learned how to kindle one easily. In these days we can kindle a fire without any trouble because we can easily get a match; but we must remember that the match is one of the most wonderful things in the world, and that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make one. Let us learn the history of this familiar little object, the match.

Fire was first given to man by nature itself. When a forest is set on fire by cinders from a neighboring volcano, or when a tree is set ablaze by a thunderbolt, we may say that nature strikes a match. In the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark. The first method, then, of getting fire for use was to light sticks of wood at a flame kindled by nature—by a volcano, perhaps, or by a stroke of lightning. These firebrands were carried to the home and used in kindling the fires there. The fire secured in this way was carefully guarded and was kept burning as long as possible. But the flame, however faithfully watched, would sometimes be extinguished. A sudden gust of wind or a sudden shower would put it out. Then a new firebrand would have to be secured, and this often meant a long journey and a deal of trouble.

In 1827, John Walker, a druggist in a small English town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. The druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. It is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. Although Walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. In a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. The match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. It would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. This was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar.

How does the author convince readers that the match was "the most wonderful thing in the world"? Please respond in three to five complete sentences, using evidence from the text to support your answer.

Explanation:

We note the author's intriguing statement at the outset when he said "that it took men thousands of years to learn how to make" a match.

Also, he further highlighted how problematic it was to depend on nature when he said "in the early history of the world, nature had to kindle all the fires, for man by his own effort was unable to produce a spark".

To express the problems further, the author also says that they would have to guard the fire but the fire would still go out sometimes and then they would have to go on long and difficult journeys.

Well, Humanity's early fire-starting tools may have been dangerous because in the text is says, "It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions." This is dangerous because it would spew fire in all directions and if you think about it, the fire would hit something and then that thing would catch on fire. Lets say you were using the match inside your house. When you strike the match, a spark flies onto the wood floor and your house goes up in flames and you are stuck inside the house with no exit or escape. This may or may not happen, but because of the fire not being contained, there was a chance that you would be harmed.

hope this helped