The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports state-level and national data on crimes.
An investigator compares the incidence of crime in Minnesota and in Michigan. In 2001, there were 3,584 crimes in Minnesota, compared to 4,082 in Michigan. He concludes that Minnesotans are more law- abiding. After all, Michigan includes the big bad city of Detroit. What do you say?

a)what was concluded is spurious

b) what was concluded could betrue

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Considering the number in Michigan, there is higher number of crimes but considering the population in Minnesota, the population is much less than Michigan, considering the crime the crimes per capital with the population size, Therefore Minnesota could have more crimes than Michigan's so, The conclusion is not true.

b)There is reduction of crimes from 1991 to 2001, so it can be assumed that the population has increased over the times, therefore, the per capita number of crimes decreased.

area of part 1:

a1=base*height/2=(8+2)*(8-2-2-1)/2=10*3/2=15 ft^2

area of part 2:

a2=length*width=(8+2)*1=10 ft2

area of part 3:

a3=length*width=8*2=16 ft2

total shaded area : a1+a2+a3=41 ft2

total area of the reactangle : a=16*8=128 ft2

total area of the nonshaded region : 128-41=87 ft2

no idea

step-by-step explanation: