100 POINTS AND BRAINLIEST two paintings were sold were for $50 and $350. find the mean and the median
Mean :
Median:
At a gallery show, three paintings were sold for $250, $400, and $1,200.
Mean :
Median:
oil paintings have been sold for $410, $400, and $375.
Mean :
Median:
YOUR ANSWER WILL BE REPORTED IF YOU PUT NONSENSE

Here, for example, is square inch pricing, using a multiplier of 2.5 (ie, $2.50 per square inch):

4×4 inches = 16 square inches x 2.5 = $40

8×8 inches = 64 square inches x 2.5 = $160

16×16 inches = 256 square inches x 2.5 = $640

24×24 inches = 576 square inches x 2.5 = $1,440

32×32 inches = 1,024 square inches x 2.5 = $2,560

I don’t know about you, but $40 seems awfully small price for a painting by someone who commands $2,560 for a 32×32 canvas.

Here are the same canvas sizes using linear inch pricing, using a multiplier of 20 (ie, $20.00 per linear inch) — as you can see, the difference in price feels a lot less out-of whack:

4+4 inches = 8 linear inches x 20 = $160

8+8 inches = 16 linear inches x 20 = $320

16+16 inches = 32 linear inches x 20 = $640

24+24 inches = 48 linear inches x 20 = $960

32+32 inches = 64 linear inches x 20 = $1,280

Neither of these pricing methods is “right” or “wrong,” but once you determine your method and your multiplier, charging by size can be a very helpful way to eliminate the guesswork, and feel confident about your pricing.

Different Pricing for Different Media?

One possible modifier to your size-based pricing structure is the media you paint with. If you only paint watercolors, or only paint oils, there’s no problem, but if you paint both on canvas and on paper, as I do, it gets a little tricky.

For whatever reason, paintings on paper tend to sell for less than paintings on canvas — even though they require framing, which is an added expense. In my case, if I were to pay to have a piece framed, my costs become much higher for a work on paper than for a canvas painting! What’s an artist to do?

(And remember that pricing your prints is an entirely different topic.)

I don’t have a final answer to this question, except to refer you to the item below…

Step-by-step explanation:

Here, for example, is square inch pricing, using a multiplier of 2.5 (ie, $2.50 per square inch):

4×4 inches = 16 square inches x 2.5 = $40

8×8 inches = 64 square inches x 2.5 = $160

16×16 inches = 256 square inches x 2.5 = $640

24×24 inches = 576 square inches x 2.5 = $1,440

32×32 inches = 1,024 square inches x 2.5 = $2,560

I don’t know about you, but $40 seems awfully small price for a painting by someone who commands $2,560 for a 32×32 canvas.

Here are the same canvas sizes using linear inch pricing, using a multiplier of 20 (ie, $20.00 per linear inch) — as you can see, the difference in price feels a lot less out-of whack:

4+4 inches = 8 linear inches x 20 = $160

8+8 inches = 16 linear inches x 20 = $320

16+16 inches = 32 linear inches x 20 = $640

24+24 inches = 48 linear inches x 20 = $960

32+32 inches = 64 linear inches x 20 = $1,280

Neither of these pricing methods is “right” or “wrong,” but once you determine your method and your multiplier, charging by size can be a very helpful way to eliminate the guesswork, and feel confident about your pricing.

Different Pricing for Different Media?

One possible modifier to your size-based pricing structure is the media you paint with. If you only paint watercolors, or only paint oils, there’s no problem, but if you paint both on canvas and on paper, as I do, it gets a little tricky.

For whatever reason, paintings on paper tend to sell for less than paintings on canvas — even though they require framing, which is an added expense. In my case, if I were to pay to have a piece framed, my costs become much higher for a work on paper than for a canvas painting! What’s an artist to do?

(And remember that pricing your prints is an entirely different topic.)

I don’t have a final answer to this question, except to refer you to the item below…

Step-by-step explanation:

given that triangle abc is transformed two times to get triangle

a"b"c"

first abc is transformed in to a'b'c' as follows:

the coordinates of a are (1,-1) and transformed into a'(-1,1)

similarly b (4,-2) became b'(-4,2) and

c(7,-2) became c'(-7,2)

i.e. (x,y) becomes (-x,-y)

this is nothing but reflection about a point here origin.

thus first transformation is reflection on the origin.

next is exactly shifting 3 units down

source: