Tyrell and Channing both work at the same fast food restaurant. Channing works 5 hours and earns $42.75. Tyrell's earnings are modeled by the equation E = 8h, where h is the number of hours worked and E represents his total earnings. Which of the following statements must be true? a. Channing earns more money per hour than Tyrell.
b. Tyrell earns more money per hour than Channing.
c. Channing and Tyrell each earn the same amount of money per hour.
d. Tyrell works twice as many hours per week as does Channing.

A. Channing makes $8.55 an hour compared to Tyrell who only makes $8 an hour.

Step-by-step explanation:

To find how much Channing makes an hour, divide the amount earned ($42.75) by the hours he worked (5). So, 42.75/5=8.55 which is Channing's hourly wage. Tyrell's hourly wage was already given to us in the equation E=8h. 8 times his hours works= his earnings. 8.55>8.00

answer: i literally just answered this question but they want me to do it again

step-by-step explanation:

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.