ASAP
Brianna invested $480 in an account paying an interest rate of 6 1/2% compounded continuously. Adam invested $480 in an account paying an interest rate of 6 3/4 % compounded quarterly. To the nearest hundredth of a year, how much longer would it take for Brianna's money to double than for Adam's money to double?

it would take 7 years more for Brianna's money to double than for Adam's money to double

Step-by-step explanation:

Considering Brianna's investment,

The formula for continuously compounded interest is

A = P x e (r x t)

Where

A represents the future value of the investment after t years.

P represents the present value or initial amount invested

r represents the interest rate

t represents the time in years for which the investment was made.

e is the mathematical constant approximated as 2.7183.

From the information given,

P = $480

r = 6.5% = 6.5/100 = 0.065

A = 2 × 480 = $960

Therefore,

960 = 1800 x 2.7183^(0.065 x t)

960/1800 = 2.7183^(0.065t)

2 = 2.7183^(0.065t)

Taking ln of both sides, it becomes

Ln 2 = 0.065tln2.7183

0.693 = 0.065t

t = 0.693/0.065

t = 10.66

Approximately 17 years

Considering Adam's investment, we would apply the formula for determining compound interest which is expressed as

A = P(1+r/n)^nt

Where

A = total amount in the account at the end of t years

r represents the interest rate.

n represents the periodic interval at which it was compounded.

P represents the principal or initial amount deposited

From the information given,

P = 480

A = 960

r = 6.75% = 6.75/100 = 0.0675

n = 4 because it was compounded 4 times in a year.

Therefore,.

960 = 480(1 + 0.0675/4)^4 × t

960/480 = (1 + 0.016875)^4t

960/480 = (1.016875)^4t

Taking log of both sides, it becomes

Log 2 = 4t log 1.016875

0.301 = 0.0291t

t = 0.301/0.0291

t = 10.34

Approximately 10 years

h

step-by-step explanation:

the results from a pre-test for students for the year 2000 and the year 2010 are illustrated in the box plot. what do these results tell us about how students performed on the 29 question pre-test for the two years?

if we compare only the lowest and highest scores between the two years, we might conclude that the students in 2010 did better than the students in 2010. this conclusion seems to follow since the lowest score of 8 in 2010 is greater in value than the lowest score of 6 in 2000. also, the highest score of 28 in 2010 is greater in value than the highest score of 27 in 2000.

but the box portion of the illustration gives us more detailed information. the middle bar in each box shows us that the median score of 20 in 2000 is greater in value than the median score of 17 in 2010. further, we note that the box and whiskers divide the illustration into four pieces. each of these four pieces represents the same portion of students. so, the upper half of the students in 2000 scored in the same score range as the upper one-fourth of the students in 2010, see the illustration at a score of 20.

by considering the upper one-fourth, upper half, and upper three-fourths instead of just the lowest and highest scores, we would conclude that the students as a whole did much better in 2000 than in 2010. we would conclude that as a whole the students in 2010 are less prepared than the students in 2000.

in this section, we discuss box-and-whisker plots and the five key values used in constructing a box-and-whisker plot. the key values are called a five-number summary, which consists of the minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum.

step-by-step explanation: