Kelsey buys several pairs of uniform pants for $17.95 each, and a sweater for $24.
Jeana shops at a different store and buys several pairs of uniform pants for $18.95 each, plus a sweater for $18.
They set up the situation with the equation below, where x is the number of pairs of pants.
Is there a situation in which they pay the same amount for their purchases?

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

If myesha works overtime, she gets paid "time and a half" for every hour she works. in other words, for every hour over 40 hours myesha works each week, she gets her hourly pay plus half her hourly pay. what is myesha's pay per hour when she works overtime?

Consider the functions below. function 1 function 2 function 3 select the statement which is true about the functions over the interval [1, 2] a b function 3 has the highest average rate of change function 2 and function 3 have the same average rate of change. function and function 3 have the same average rate of change function 2 has the lowest average rate of change d.