Shaquille bought 2 chairs and 3 chair cushions and pent between $30 and $50. each chair cost the same amount. each chair cushion cost the same amount. the price of a chair cushion is $4.00. what is the least amount shaquille could have spent on a chair? what is the most shaquille could have spent on a chair?

none cuz there are no "following statements" regarding the question

step-by-step explanation:

the system of inequalities is

step-by-step explanation:

step 1

find the equation of the dashed line

we have the points

(0,0) and (3,1)

the line passes through the origin, so, is a direct variation

find the slope

the equation of the dashed line is

the solution of the inequality a s the shaded area above the dashed line

therefore

the equation of the inequality a is

step 2

find the equation of the solid line

we have the points

(4,0) and (0,4)

find the slope

the equation of the solid line is

the solution of the inequality b s the shaded area below the solid line

therefore

the equation of the inequality b is

step 3

the system of inequalities is

5x + 3y = - 4

step-by-step explanation:

the equation of a line in standard form is

ax + by = c ( a is a positive integer and b, c are integers )

express the line first of all in slope- intercept form

y = mx + c ( m is the slope and c the y-intercept )

to calculate m use the gradient formula

m = ( y₂ - y₁ ) / ( x₂ - x₁ )

with (x₁, y₁ ) = (7, - 3) and (x₂, y₂ ) = (4, - 8)

m = = -

y = - x + c ← is the partial equation

to find c substitute either of the 2 points into the partial equation

using (4, - 8 ), then

- 8 = - + c ⇒ c = -

y = - x - ← in slope-intercept form

multiply all terms by 3 to eliminate the fractions

3y = - 5x - 4 ( add 5x to both sides )

5x + 3y = - 4 ← in standard form

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.