i'm struggling with this question, any /explanation would be appreciated
translate both the premise and the conclusion of this argument into standard form categorical statements. then determine whether it is valid or invalid using the boolean standpoint. "only women have been u. s. presidents. therefore, people who aren't women haven't been u. s. presidents."

Juliana says that she can use the patterns of equivalent ratios in the multiplication table below to write an infinite number of ratios that are equivalent to 6: 10. which statement explains whether juliana is correct? she is correct because she can multiply 6 and 10 by any number to form an equivalent ratio. she is correct because 6: 10 can be written as 1: 2 and there are an infinite number of ratios for 1: 2. she is not correct because the multiplication table does not include multiples of 10. she is not correct because 6: 10 is equivalent to 3: 5 and there are only 9 ratios in the multiplication table that are equivalent to 3: 5.

Tom is the deli manager at a grocery store. he needs to schedule employee to staff the deli department for no more that 260 person-hours per week. tom has one part-time employee who works 20 person-hours per week. each full-time employee works 40 person-hours per week. write and inequality to determine n, the number of full-time employees tom may schedule, so that his employees work on more than 260 person-hours per week. graph the solution set to this inequality.

What is the true solution to the logarithmic equation below?