"on the richter scale, the magnitude r of an earthquake can be measured by the intensity formula
r=log(i/io)
where i is the intensity of the shock wave. compare the intensity of an earthquake measuring 4.5 with the intensity of an earthquake measuring 3.0 on the richter scale. round your answer to the nearest whole number."
a) the earth quake measuring 4.5 on the richter scale is about 1.8 times more intense than an earthquake measuring 3.
b) the earth quake measuring 4.5 on the richter scale is about 32 times more intense than an earthquake measuring 3.
c) the earth quake measuring 4.5 on the richter scale is about 9 times more intense than an earthquake measuring 3.
the earth quake measuring 4.5 on the richter scale is about 63 times more intense than an earthquake measuring 3.

  B)  The earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale is about 32 times more intense than an earthquake measuring 3.

Step-by-step explanation:

Let Ra = log(Ia/Io), and Rb = log(Ib/Io). Then for ...

  Ra - Rb = 4.5 -3.0 = 1.5

  log(Ia/Io) -log(Ib/Io) = 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . substitute the given expressions

  (log(Ia) -log(Io)) -(log(Ib) -log(Io)) = 1.5 . . . expand the logs

  log(Ia) -log(Ib) = 1.5 . . . . simplify

  log(Ia/Ib) = 1.5 . . . . . . . . write as a single log

  Ia/Ib = 10^1.5 ≈ 32 . . . . take the antilog

The ratio of intensities is about 32, corresponding to choice B.

160

step-by-step explanation:

idk

i hope i

the results from a pre-test for students for the year 2000 and the year 2010 are illustrated in the box plot. what do these results tell us about how students performed on the 29 question pre-test for the two years?

if we compare only the lowest and highest scores between the two years, we might conclude that the students in 2010 did better than the students in 2010. this conclusion seems to follow since the lowest score of 8 in 2010 is greater in value than the lowest score of 6 in 2000. also, the highest score of 28 in 2010 is greater in value than the highest score of 27 in 2000.

but the box portion of the illustration gives us more detailed information. the middle bar in each box shows us that the median score of 20 in 2000 is greater in value than the median score of 17 in 2010. further, we note that the box and whiskers divide the illustration into four pieces. each of these four pieces represents the same portion of students. so, the upper half of the students in 2000 scored in the same score range as the upper one-fourth of the students in 2010, see the illustration at a score of 20.

by considering the upper one-fourth, upper half, and upper three-fourths instead of just the lowest and highest scores, we would conclude that the students as a whole did much better in 2000 than in 2010. we would conclude that as a whole the students in 2010 are less prepared than the students in 2000.

in this section, we discuss box-and-whisker plots and the five key values used in constructing a box-and-whisker plot. the key values are called a five-number summary, which consists of the minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum.

step-by-step explanation: