Serena says that if a regression line is drawn correctly in a scatterplot, there will always be the same number of points above the line as there are below the line. Which of these must be a counterexample to her claim? a scatterplot with an odd number of points in which the correct regression line passes directly through 0 of the points
a scatterplot with an even number of points in which the correct regression line passes directly through 0 of the points
a scatterplot with an odd number of points in which the correct regression line passes directly through 1 of the points
a scatterplot with an even number of points in which the correct regression line passes directly through 2 of the points

if a = 1,   and b = 2, then the answer is 47.99999999. if you round that to the nearest whole number, the answer is 48.

$9.89

step-by-step explanation:

9.90 = p x .06 x .25 (3/12 changed to a decimal)

9.90 = p x 0.015

9.90 - 0.015 = p

9.89 = p

kjnsk nidn t

dfj dt

step-by-step explanation:

vjnijernv

one way is to plot 2 points and connect them which is what the answer choices seem to be doing

it seems to be using the y intercept and the slope

y=mx+b, m=slope, b=y-intercept (where the line hits the y axis)

slope=rise/run

y-intercept is where the line croses the y axis which is the y value where x=0

you seem to have given the wrong slope (you didn't put a number in front of te x, it should be 2/3 or 3/2 looking at the answer options)

y=? x-1

m=? because of your fault

b=-1

so it has a slope of ? and y intercept of -1, meaning it pases through (0,-1)

so draw point (0,-1) (so answer is one of the first 2 option)

if slope is 2/3, then go up 2 and right 3 then draw line through those 2 points

if slope is 3/2, then go up 3 and right 2 then draw line through those 2 points