Solve the problem.Suppose you pay $1.00 to roll a fair die with the understanding that you will get back $3.00 for rolling 3 or 6. What are your expected winnings?

Solve the problem.Among 170 households surveyed, 52 have a video camera, 56 have a snapshot camera, 27 have binoculars, 8 have a video camera and a snapshot camera, 7 have a snapshot camera and binoculars, and 2 have all three products. What is the probability that a household will have a snapshot camera or binoculars? Express the answer as a fraction.

Solve the problem.Suppose a charitable organization decides to raise money by raffling a trip worth $500. If 3000 tickets are sold at $1.00 each, find the expected value of winning for a person who buys 1 ticket.

State the linear programming problem in mathematical terms, identifying the objective function and the constraints.A car repair shop blends oil from two suppliers.Supplier I can supply at most 43 gal with 4% detergent. Supplier II can supply at most 61 gal with 3.2% detergent. How much can be ordered from each to get at most 100 gal of oil with maximum detergent?

The password is pax tacum

Sleep depravation has been shown by researchers to result in which of the following?

The police suspected that Luke, a 17-year-old high school student of selling marijuana to his classmates. Luke lived with his mother. The police went to the mother’s house without a search warrant and secured permission from Luke’s mother to search Luke’s bedroom. In his bedroom, they found a locked suitcase under the bed. Luke’s mother said that it was Luke’s suitcase, but that they could search it. The police then broke the suitcase’s lock, opened the suitcase, and found a substantial amount of marijuana. Luke has been charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and brings a pretrial motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence. How should the court rule on the motion?

Within minutes after hearing gunshots from the neighboring house belonging to Nancy, Randy called the police. When the police arrived, two officers entered the unlocked front door with guns drawn. They observed a man lying on the floor. The victim had been shot in the stomach and was unconscious. While one officer called an ambulance, the other began to search Nancy’s house, looking for the gunman. When the officer opened a closet door in the master bedroom, he observed several small bags containing a white substance. Based on experience and training, the officer had probable cause to believe the contents were cocaine. The officer seized the bags. The officer then entered the kitchen and noticed the back door was open. He observed a gun on the ground a few feet from the doorstep. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gunshot victim was Nancy’s cousin, and that the bags did indeed contain cocaine. Nancy was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine. Nancy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming that the officers’ entry and subsequent search were unlawful. Should the court grant Nancy’s motion?

Kate and Ian left for a weekend trip. They asked Felix, a teenaged neighbor, to come to their house each day to feed the tropical fish in the den and to water the plants in the kitchen and bedrooms. The police, who were suspicious that Ian was a bookie, came to Kate and Ian’s house while Felix was there and asked if they might look around. Felix gave permission, and the police went to the basement, where they found illegal betting equipment. The equipment was clearly visible to anyone looking in the basement window from Kate and Ian’s backyard. After Ian was indicted for possession of illegal betting equipment, he brought a motion to suppress the evidence found in the basement. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

On March 15, a police officer submitted an application for a warrant to search 342 Main Street for cocaine. In the application, the officer stated under oath that he believed there was cocaine at that location because of information supplied to him on the morning of March 15 by an informant. He described the informant as a cocaine user who had previously supplied accurate information concerning the use of cocaine in the community and summarized what the informant had told him as follows: the previous night, March 14, she was in the house at 342 Main Street. The occupant gave her cocaine. She also saw three cellophane bags containing cocaine in his bedroom. The warrant was issued and a search of 342 Main Street was conducted on March 15. The search turned up a quantity of marijuana but no cocaine. The occupant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The occupant moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence, contending that the informant was not in 342 Main Street on March 14 or at any other time. If, after hearing evidence, the judge concludes that the statement in the application attributed to the informant is incorrect, the judge should grant the motion to suppress: