It’s clear that this course teaches a combination of analytical and Euclidean geometry. Based on your experiences so far, which approach to geometry do you prefer? Why? Which approach is easier to extend beyond two dimensions? What are some situations in which one approach to geometry would prove more beneficial than the other? Describe the situation and why you think analytical or Euclidean geometry is more applicable. 100 PTS BRAINLIEST ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN TEXT

the least common denominatore of 7 and 2 is 9

step-by-step explanation:

7+2=9

the data of the detroit pistons in numerical order from least to greatest is 0.30, 0.37, 0.55, 0.62, 0.69, 0.72, 0.73, 0.75, 0.77, 0.78, 0.80, 0.81, 0.81, 0.83, 0.84, 0.89

the data of the miami heat in numerical order from least to greatest is 0.50, 0.50, 0.56, 0.57, 0.67, 0.72, 0.72, 0.72, 0.75, 0.75, 0.76, 0.81, 0.82, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00

the detroit pistons median : 1.52

the miami heat median: 1.47

the iqr of this data is 0.05

answer: c, the green line

step-by-step explanation:

there is no black line, eliminate b.

simple interest implies periodic payments, but the red line shows no payments, eliminate d.

simple interest has equal payments. if paid say every day, the graph is about a straight line (actually a stairstep).

the yellow line is not straight, eliminate a.

check: the green line is straight, answer is c.

simple interest with positive interest rate gives a straight line sloping up to the right. green line:

g(t) = $100 + ($200-$100) ÷ (20 years) × (t years)

= $100 + (4%/year) × ($100)(t years)

incidentally, the yellow line curving upward represents continuously compounded interest

y = $100 × 2^(t years / (14 assuming the yellow line hits $200 at 14 years. 2^0 is 1, so y(0) = $100; 2^(14/14) is 2, so y(14) = $200.