Rewrite each of these statements so that negations appear only within predicates (that is, so that no negation is outside a quantifier or an expression involving logical connectives). a) ¬∃y∃xp (x, y) b) ¬∀x∃yp (x, y) c) ¬∃y(q(y) ∧ ∀x¬r(x, y)) d) ¬∃y(∃xr(x, y) ∨ ∀xs(x, y)) e) ¬∃y(∀x∃zt (x, y, z) ∨ ∃x∀zu (x, y, z))

answer: c, the green line

step-by-step explanation:

there is no black line, eliminate b.

simple interest implies periodic payments, but the red line shows no payments, eliminate d.

simple interest has equal payments. if paid say every day, the graph is about a straight line (actually a stairstep).

the yellow line is not straight, eliminate a.

check: the green line is straight, answer is c.

simple interest with positive interest rate gives a straight line sloping up to the right. green line:

g(t) = $100 + ($200-$100) ÷ (20 years) × (t years)

= $100 + (4%/year) × ($100)(t years)

incidentally, the yellow line curving upward represents continuously compounded interest

y = $100 × 2^(t years / (14 assuming the yellow line hits $200 at 14 years. 2^0 is 1, so y(0) = $100; 2^(14/14) is 2, so y(14) = $200.

the answer is 54 sq. ft. i just did this question, on odyssey ware, and it was right. make brainliest.

3

step-by-step explanation:

because where the point where the 2 lines intersect is (3,-1) the x value is 3