The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in a certain professional baseball league, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Step-by-step explanation:

This could be an observational study because an experiment was not carried out by the research to further verify this hypothesis. Individuals are observed and data is collected from such observation. No effort is made by the researcher to affect the outcome of such results.

This study alone is not enough to conclude about a cause and effect relationship between steroids and the increase in home runs as thus study is not randomized and cant control other factors or links bringing about this result.

144.50

step-by-step explanation:

21.5 x 13.4=288.10 divide by 2

x =-.20752

step-by-step explanation:

4^(x+2)=12

4^(x+2)=12

take the log base 4 on each side

log 4 (4^(x+2) = log 4(12)

we know log b(a^y) = y log b (a)

(x+2) log 4(4) = log 4 (12)

x+2 = log 4 (12)

we know   logb c = loga c/loga b

we want to convert to base 10   so a = 10

by default, we do not write the 10   c = 4   and b = 10

log4 10 = log 12/log 4

log4 10 = log 12/ log 4

x+2 = log 12/ log 4

subtract 2 from each side

x +2 -2 = log 12/ log 4 -2

x = 1.79248125 -2

x =-.20752