Our wheelan readings this week offer an example of a weight-related regression where a very small person could end up having a negative body weight. likewise, weight ends up being partially determinable by adding variables that have nothing to do with the biology of the individual. discuss your explanation for how these factors can be true of our regression analysis, and yet not invalidate the regression itself. discuss whether or not we should consider these variables as causes of a persons weight, and if not, how should we think about these variables? how do you explain that negative body weight possibility?

answer: 140

step-by-step explanation:

so just add all then it will be your answer but i am not pretty sur eif it is but hope this i am here to people

question 1 is 8, question 2 is 9, question 3 is 24

step-by-step explanation:

now, the numbers they give you at the top are the key. from there, you just have to plug and chug! let's try 1, 2, and 3!

key: a=3, b=5, c=6

1. a+5

remember, a=3, so we plug that in to get 3+5=8

2. 15-c

c=6, so we plug that in to get 15-6=9

3. 4b

b=6, so we plug it in to get 4*6=24

time to try the rest on your own! if you put the answers below in a comment, i'll check them for you!

0.02

step-by-step explanation:

time of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom at 0 k (but other seconds are sometimes used in astronomy)

but which class are u may know that first