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

x = 10.1

step-by-step explanation:

all of the angles of a tirangle add up to 180º

180 - 65 = 115 (since we already know the value of one angle)

(2x + 7) + (8x + 7) = 115

(combins like terms) 10x + 14 = 115

(isolate the variable subtract 14 from both sides): 10x = 101

(find the variable divide both sides by 10): x = 101/10

x = 10.1

the 4th choice is the correct one

step-by-step explanation:

60.9774

step-by-step explanation:

because when you add 47.6 plus 7.32 equals 54.92

and when you add .0574 + 6= 6.0574

and when you add 54.92 and 6.0574 you get the answer of 60.9774.

plzz mark brainlest last one got deleted. cause i didn't explain it but i did but i understand what the mod meant

mathpapa

step-by-step explanation: