You ran a regression of income (y) on years of education (x). Income is measured in thousands of US$. Because of heteroscedasticity, you transformed your dependent variable. Your regression line is now: predicted ln (income) = 2.4 + 0.06 x education What is the predicted income for a person who has 9 years of education?

A. $12,940
B. $ 18,916
C. $ 29,400
D. $ 2,940

What is the rule for reflection across the y axis

Juliana says that she can use the patterns of equivalent ratios in the multiplication table below to write an infinite number of ratios that are equivalent to 6: 10. which statement explains whether juliana is correct? she is correct because she can multiply 6 and 10 by any number to form an equivalent ratio. she is correct because 6: 10 can be written as 1: 2 and there are an infinite number of ratios for 1: 2. she is not correct because the multiplication table does not include multiples of 10. she is not correct because 6: 10 is equivalent to 3: 5 and there are only 9 ratios in the multiplication table that are equivalent to 3: 5.

This is about circle theorems. someone asap : (