Task 5 PROBABILITY, STATISTICS, & QUANTITATIVE PROBLEM Essay

Task 5 PROBABILITY, STATISTICS, & QUANTITATIVE PROBLEM - Essay Example Therefore cost subsequent to discount is x-0.1x=0.9x. Hence the cost before and after tax is X=0.9x. Company B; let the cost prior to discount be represented by y. Company B wont award discount if y≠¤20. Hence cost subsequent to discount is y. We end up with the equation y= given y≠¤20. Incase y exceeds 20, company B will award 20% discount for any amount more than 20 dollars. The amount more than 20 dollars is y-20.discount is 20/100 of (y-20) =0.2x-4. The cost y subsequent to discount is given by 0.8x+4. Hence the cost before and after tax is connected by y=x given x≠¤20, y=0.8x+4 given y>20 Company A: The cost prior to discount is not more than 20 dollars. Systems of equations to be solved are x=0.9x, y=x and y=y .it implies that x=y=y. therefore x=0.9x hence dividing both sides by x we get 0.hence solution to the systems is x=o, y=0 and z=0. It implies that incase purchases are more than 20dollars, the two companies’ offers are equal if they do not purchase at all. Incase x inclines from 0 to 20 company’s A offer is better as they give10% discount and no discount is given by company B. Company B: The cost prior to discount is more than 20 dollars. Systems of equations to be solved are y=0.9x, y=0.8x+4 and y=y meaning 0.9x=0.8x+4 which gives us 0.1x=4 hence x=40. Y=0.9Ãâ€"40=36 and y=y=36. The solutions to this system is therefore x=40, y=36 and y=36. It implies that incase purchases are more than 20dollars, the two companies’ offers are equal if the amount prior to discount is 40dollars.if 20

Turner v. Safley Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Turner v. Safley - Essay Example The second rule entailed that prisoners could only get married with the permission of the prison superintendent. This permission was only granted due to â€Å"compelling reasons†, which generally were a pregnancy or the birth of a child outside of marriage. Both the Federal District Court and Court of Appeals found these rules unconstitutional and ruled in favor of the petitioners, i.e. the inmates. The Missouri Division of Corrections appealed in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, it was held that the first rule was reasonable and necessary for security reasons; if correspondence were to be allowed freely between prisoners, it could lead to inmates plotting escape plans, arranging violent activities and to promote prison gang activities. Moreover, this rule did not bar the prisoners from corresponding to prisoners and hence did not deprive them of all ways of expression. This rule was necessary for the safety of the prison staff as well as of the prisoners themselves. Therefore, the earlier decision in this matter was overturned. On the second rule, however, the Court agreed with the decision of the lower courts. It was decided that such a rule barred the right of the prisoners to marry on an unreasonable level, as, whether a prisoner married another prisoner or a civilian, it could not possibly have a negative effect that large on the prison staff or inmates so as to render it necessary for them to obtain the permission of the prison superintendent. Hence this rule was declared unconstitutional and ordered removed. The ruling of the Court was very balanced in its approach. The Court did not allow the infringement of the rights of the inmates that the Constitution provided them; moreover, it also kept in mind that the security of the prison staff and inmates was of prime importance and could not be compromised. Though it is important for none of the