There has been a great deal of controversy over the last several years regarding what types of surveillance are appropriate to prevent terrorism. suppose a particular surveillance system has a chance of correctly identifying a future terrorist and a chance of correctly identifying someone who is not a future terrorist. if there are future terrorists in a population of million, and one of these million is randomly selected, scrutinized by the system, and identified as a future terrorist, what is the probability that he/she actually is a future terrorist? does the value of this probability make you uneasy about using the surveillance system? explain.

1010: 3030

is it i think

the answer is (-8,-5)

step-by-step explanation:

the endpoint to midpoint is half the length. the length is (-2,-1) so when you are at the midpoint just add it to it to find your answer -6+(-2)= -8 and -4+(-1)=-5 so (-8,-5)

you just switch the numbers basically so it would be 3/17

statement #3: proof- ang is congruent to ang ecd : angles are congruent.  

step-by-step explanation:

1: the missing angles in statement #3  

a.) acb  

reason- the reason why the answer is acb is because angle ecd and angle acb are both the same size *that's what the word congruent means this is really simple.  

2: the missing word in reason #3  

c.) vertical  

reason- the reason why the answer is vertical is because the angles in that diagram on figure 2 is slanted, which is vertical, and the e and a both lay on vertical lines. along with the other's, but e and a are the 2 main points you want to focus on. and c is kind of like your starting point, because c is for both angles, not just one.  

i hope that was and understanding.