Which of the following best describes a relationship that is NO CORRELATION? A. the more the rooster crows, the more often it rains

B. the higher the hourly wage, the greater the income for 40 hours of work

C. the more miles driven, the more gasoline needed

D. the faster the pace of the runner, the more quickly the runner finishes

() (98 points)to be fair, you have to have a very high iq to understant the jokes in rick and morty. the humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. there's also rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from narodnaya volya literature, for instance. the fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about life. as a consequence people who dislike rick & morty truly are idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in rick's existential catchphrase "wubba lubba dub dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to turgenev's russian epic fathers and sons. i'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as dan harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. what fools.. how i pity them. and yes, by the way, i do have a rick & morty tattoo. and no, you cannot see it. it's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 iq points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. nothin personnel kid

Determine the fraction of total interest owed. after the fourth month of a 12-month loan: the numerator is: {(n + ) + (n + ) + (n + ) + (n + )} = , and the denominator is: {(n) + (n + 1) + + (n + )} = . therefore, the fraction is numerator/denominator (to the nearest tenth) =

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.