Sebastian is working to summer jobs, making $8 per hour walking dogs and $10 per hour clearing tables. in a given week, he can work no more than 12 total hours and must earn a minimum of $100. if x represents the number of hours walking dogs and y represents the number of hours clearing tables, right and solve a system of inequalities graphically and determine one possible solution.

The graph in the attached figure

One possible solution is the ordered pair (3,8)

see the explanation

Step-by-step explanation:

Let

x ---> the number of hours walking dogs

y ----> the number of hours clearing tables

we know that

He can work no more than 12 total hours

so

----> inequality A

He must earn a minimum of $100

so

----> inequality B  

Solve the system of inequalities by graphing

using a graphing tool

The solution is the triangular shaded area

see the attached figure

Remember that

If a ordered pair is a solution of the system of inequalities, then the ordered pair must lie in the shaded area of the solution set (the ordered pair makes true both inequalities)

so

One possible solution is the ordered pair (3,8)

That means

In the given week, the number of hours walking dogs was 3 and the number of hours clearing tables was 8

Verify algebraically

Substitute the value of x and the value of y in the inequality A and in the Inequality B

inequality A

----> is true

Inequality B

---> is true

therefore

the ordered pair (3,8) is a possible solution of the system

54 km / hours

step-by-step explanation:

we need to convert seconds to hours

60 seconds = 1 minutes

60 minutes = 1hour

15 m         60 second   60 minutes

  * *         = 54000 meters/ hour

second     1 minute             1 hour

now we need to convert meters to km

1000 m = 1 km

54000 m       1 km

*   = 54 km / hours

hour               1000m

no association

step-by-step explanation:

if you have eyes and you can use them efficiently you can see that it just looks like random dots like do a line of best fit and like they're so spread out it's such a weak association you might as well consider it nonexistent