Business Statistics Communicating With Numbers 3rd Edition Jaggia Solutions Manual

Business Statistics Communicating
with Numbers 3rd Edition Jaggia

Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/business-statistics-communicating-with-numbers-3rd-edition-jaggia-solutions-m
anual/
Chapter 10 – Statistical Inference Concerning Two Populations
Chapter 10. Statistical Inference

Concerning Two Populations
Solutions
1.
a. At 𝛼 = 0.05, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 𝑧0.025 = 1.96.
𝜎12 𝜎22 98.2 87.4

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼 √ + = (25.7 − 30.6) ± 1.96√ +
2 𝑛1 𝑛2 20 25
= −4.9 ± 5.68, or [−10.58, 0.78]
With 95% confidence, the difference between the population means is

between -10.58 and 0.78.
b. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
c. From part (a), the interval [−10.58; 0.78] contains 0, the value
hypothesized under the null hypothesis. At the 5% significance level, we
do not reject 𝐻0 and we cannot conclude that the population means differ.
2.
a. For 𝛼 = 0.05 and 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2 = 15 + 20 − 2 = 33; 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 =
𝑡0.025,33 = 2.035.
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (15−1)7.9+(20−1)9.3
𝑠𝑝2 = = = 8.71
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 15+20−2
1 1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) ± 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 √𝑠𝑝2 ( + 𝑛 ) = (−10.5 + 16.8) ±
𝑛1 2
1 1
2.035√8.71 (15 + 20) = 6.3 ± 2.05, or 4.25 to 8.35
With 95% confidence, the difference between the population means is

between 4.25 and 8.35.
b. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
10-1
© 2019 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
c. From part (a), the interval [4.25; 8.35] does not contain 0, the value
hypothesized under the null hypothesis, so we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%
significance level, the population means differ.
3.
𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 57 − 63
𝑧= = = −1.41
2 2
𝜎2 𝜎2 √11.5 + 15.2
√ 1 + 2 20 20
𝑛1 𝑛2
For the two-tailed test, we compute the p-value as 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.41) =
2(0.0793) = 0.1586. Since the p-value = 0.1586 > 0.05 = 𝛼,
we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we cannot conclude that
the population means differ.
4.
a.
(𝑛1 − 1)𝑠12 + (𝑛2 − 1)𝑠22 (10 − 1)2.52 + (12 − 1)4.42

s𝑝2 = = = 13.46
𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2 10 + 12 − 2
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 20.2−17.5)−0
𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡20 = 1 1
= 1 1
= 1.719
2( + )
√𝑠𝑝 𝑛1 𝑛2
√13.46( + )
10 12
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇20 ≥ 1.719) is between 0.05 and 0.10; the exact p-value
= 0.051. Since the p-value > α = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%
significance level, we cannot conclude that µ1 is greater than µ2.
b. At 𝛼 = 0.10, since the p-value < α, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 10% significance

level, we conclude that µ1 is greater than µ2.
5.
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (10−1)352 +(10−1)232
a. 𝑠𝑝2 = = = 877
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 10+10−2
𝑑𝑓 = 10 − 10 − 2 = 18
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 249−262)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡18 = = = −0.982
2( 1 + 1 ) 1 1
√877( + )
10 10
10-2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇18 ≤ −0.982) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p-
value = 0.17. Since the p-value > α = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%
significance level, we cannot conclude that µ1 is less than µ2.
b.
𝑠 2𝑠 2 2 2
( 1+ 2) 352 232
𝑛1 𝑛2 ( + )
10 10
𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 2 = 2 2 = 15.55, rounded down to 15
𝑠 𝑠2 (35 2
⁄
2
(23 ⁄10)
( 1⁄𝑛 ) ( 2⁄𝑛 ) 10)
1 2 +
+ 10−1 10−1
𝑛1 −1 𝑛2 −1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 249 − 262) − 0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡15 = = = −0.982
2 2
𝑠2 𝑠22 √35 + 23
√ 1 + 10 10
𝑛1 𝑛2
value = 0.171. Since the p-value > α = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the
5% significance level, we cannot conclude that µ1 is less than µ2.
6.
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (22−1)21.52 +(18−1)15.22
a. 𝑠𝑝2 = = = 358.81
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 22+18−2
𝑑𝑓 = 22 − 18 − 2 = 38
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅ 2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 57 − 43) − 5
𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡38 = = = 1.495
1 1
√𝑠𝑝2 ( +𝑛 ) √358.81 ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 2 22 18
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇38 ≥ 1.495) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p-
value = 0.144.
b. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

level, we cannot conclude that the difference between the means differs
from 5.
7.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 < 0
b. 𝑥̅1 = 9.40; 𝑠1 = 1.6142

𝑥̅2 = 10.5625; 𝑠2 = 1.0155
10-3
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (8−1)1.61422 +(8−1)1.01552

𝑠𝑝2 = = = 1.8184
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 8+8−2
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 9.40−10.5625)−0
𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡14 = 1 1
= 1 1
= −1.724
2( + ) √1.8185( + )
√𝑠𝑝 𝑛1 𝑛2 8 8
value = 0.053. Since the p-value > α = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 .
At the 1% significance level, we cannot conclude that the mean of the
second population is greater than the mean of the first population.
c. With 𝛼 = 0.10, since the p-value < α, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 10% significance
level, we conclude that the mean of the second population is greater than
the mean of the first population.
8.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
b. 𝑥̅1 = 98.3333; 𝑠1 = 16.2686

𝑥̅2 = 111.6667; 𝑠2 = 10.9118
𝑠 2𝑠 2 2 2
( 1+ 2) 16.26862 10.91182
𝑛1 𝑛2 ( + )
6 6
𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 2 = 2 2 = 8.74, rounded down to 8.
𝑠 𝑠2 2
(16.2686 ⁄6)
2
(10.9118 ⁄6)
( 1⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
+
+ 6−1 6−1
𝑛1 −1 𝑛2 −1
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 98.3333−111.6667)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡8 = = 2 2
= −1.667
𝑠2 𝑠2 √16.2686 +10.9118
√ 1+ 2 6 6
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇8 ≤ −1.667) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p-
value = 0.134.
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.10, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 10% significance
level, we cannot conclude that the population means differ.
9.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(𝜇1 is the population mean of life expectancy for females and 𝜇2 is the
population mean of life expectancy for males)
10-4
𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 81.10−74.80
b. 𝑧 = = 2 2
= 3.00;
𝜎2 𝜎2 √8.2 +8.6
√ 1+ 2 32 32
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.00) = 0.0013
c. Since the p-value = 0.0013 < 0.10 = 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . The sample data
suggest that female Bostonians live longer than male Bostonians at the
10% significance level.
10.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 < 0
(𝜇1 is the population mean of salary with associate degree and 𝜇2 is the
population mean of salary with no associate degree)
𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 52,000−54,700
b. 𝑧 = = 2 2
= −5.81
𝜎2 𝜎2 √4,400 +1,500
√ 1+ 2 100 100
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −5.81) = 0 (approximately)
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The sample data indicates that
𝜇1 < 𝜇2 at the 5% significance level. The “community college penalty”
seems to apply to Lucille’s university as well.
11.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(𝜇1 is the population mean for individuals with CFAs and 𝜇2 is the
population mean for individuals with MBAs)
b.
𝑠 𝑠2 2 2 2
( 1+ 2) 34,0002 46,0002
𝑛1 𝑛2 ( + )
38 80
𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 2 = 2 2 = 95.50, rounded down to 95
𝑠 𝑠2 34,0002 46,0002
( 1⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 ) (
38
) (
80
)
+ +
𝑛1 −1 𝑛2 −1 38−1 80−1
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 138,000−130,000)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡95 = = 2 2
= 1.061
𝑠2 𝑠2 √34,000 +46,000
√ 1+ 2 38 80
𝑛1 𝑛2
10-5
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇95 ≥ 1.061) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p −
value = 0.146.
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude

that the CFA designation is more lucrative than an MBA at the 5%
significance level.
12.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
(Sample 1 represents condominiums and Sample 2 represents apartment
buildings.)
𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 244200−235800
b. 𝑧 = = 2 2
= 1.53
𝜎 2𝜎 2 √22500 +20000
√ 1+ 2 30 30
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 > 1.53) = 0.126
c. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05 and 0.10, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At
either the 5% or 10% significance levels, we cannot conclude the mean
profitability differs between condominiums and apartment buildings.
13.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(Sample 1 represents students in the first section and Sample 2 represents
students in the second section.)
b.
2
𝑠2 𝑠2
(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )
1 2
𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 = 26 (rounded down)
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1 ⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
𝑛1 − 1 + 𝑛2 − 1
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 77.40−74.10)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡26 = = 2 2
= 0.798
𝑠2 𝑠2 √10.80 +12.20
√ 1+ 2 18 14
𝑛1 𝑛2
It is necessary to assume that each population is normally distributed as

the sample sizes are not sufficiently large to use the Central Limit
Theorem. Also, following Mark’s remark, the population standard
10-6
deviations are not equal.
c. 𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇26 ≥ 0.798) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.216. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1%
significance level, there is no evidence that the first class outperforms the
second class.
14.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(Sample 1 represents the output rates of the new process and Sample 2
represents the output rates of the old process.)
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (8−1)90.782 +(10−1)148.222

b. 𝑠𝑝2 = = = 15963.10
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 8+10−2
With 𝑑𝑓 = 8 + 10 − 2 = 16,
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 2613.63−2485.10)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡16 = = = 2.145.
2( 1 + 1 ) 1 1
√15963.10( + )
8 10
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇16 ≥ 2.145) is between 0.01 and 0.025; the exact p-
value = 0.024.
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level,

we conclude that the mean output rate of the new process exceeds that of
the old process.
d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance

level, we cannot conclude that the mean output rate of the new process
exceeds that of the old process.
15.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 120 (minutes); 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 120 (minutes)
(Sample 1 is from the population of new phones and Sample 2 is from the
population of old phones. All times are converted into minutes.)
10-7
b.
2
𝑠2 𝑠2
(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )
1 2
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1 ⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
𝑛1 − 1 + 𝑛2 − 1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 485 − 340) − 120

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡146 = = = 4.069
2 2
𝑠2 𝑠22 √55.00 + 30.00
√ 1 100 120
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇146 ≥ 4.069) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0
(approximately). Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The claim
that the new product has, on average, a battery life of more than two hours
longer than the leading product is supported by the sample data at the 5%
significance level.
16.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 30, 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 30
(Sample 1 is the sample of SUVs and Sample 2 is the sample of small cars.)
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (18−1)32.002 +(38−1)24.002

b. 𝑠𝑝2 = = = 717.0370
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 18+38−2
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2 = 18 + 38 − 2 = 54,
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 95.00 − 48.00) − 30

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡54 = = = 2.219.
1 1
√𝑠𝑝2 ( + ) √717.037 ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 𝑛2 18 38
𝑇he p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇54 ≥ 2.219) is between 0.025 and 0.05; the exact p-
value = 0.03.
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.10, we reject 𝐻0 . The sample data contradicts the
claim that it takes 30 days longer to sell SUVs compared to smaller cars at
the 10% significance level.
17.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐴 − 𝜇𝐵 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐴 − 𝜇𝐵 ≠ 0
10-8
b.
16.525 − 17.250
𝑧= = −1.48
√4.4 + 5.2
40 40
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.48) = 0.1388
c. Since the p-value = 0.1388 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%

significance level, we cannot conclude that the mean longevities of Brands
A and B differ.
18.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent website searches for daytime and nighttime
advertisements, respectively.)
b.
With 𝑑𝑓 = 30 + 30 − 2 = 58,
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (98817.30−110204.17)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡16 = = = −7.249.
2( 1 + 1 ) 1570.7702
𝑇he p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇58 ≤ −7.249) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0
(approximately).
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we

conclude that the mean number of website searches differs between the
day and evening advertisements.
19.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent weight loss with low-carb and low-fat,
respectively.)
b. With 𝑑𝑓 = 30 + 30 − 2 = 58,
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (9.7733−6.2833)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡58 = = 0.4604
= 7.581.
2( 1 + 1 )
10-9
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇58 ≥ 7.581) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0
(approximately).

the sample data suggests that overweight individuals on low-carbohydrate
or Mediterranean diet lose more weight than their counterparts on low-fat
diet.
20.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 < 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent the assembly times with the new method and
old method, respectively.)
𝑠 2𝑠 2 2
( 1+ 2)
𝑛1 𝑛2
b. 𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 = 66 (rounded down)
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
+
𝑛1 −1 𝑛2 −1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 32.0938 − 32.7500) − 0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡66 = = = −1.436
0.4571
𝑠12 𝑠22
√
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇66 ≤ −1.436) is between 0.05 an 010; the exact p-value
= 0.078.
c. At the 5% significance level, since the p-value > 𝛼 , we do not reject 𝐻0 . At

the 10% significance level, since the p-value < 𝛼 , we reject 𝐻0 . Therefore,
can conclude the mean assembly time using the new method is less than
the old method only at the 10% significance level.
21.
a. Let Samples 1 and 2 represent major-league players with and without
nicknames, respectively.
𝑥̅1 = 68.0556, 𝑥̅2 = 64.0833
b. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 2.50; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 2.50
c. With 𝑑𝑓 = 18 + 12 − 2 = 28,
10-10
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (68.0556−64.0833)−2.5

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡28 = = = 0.633.
1
2( + ) 1 2..3272
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇28 ≥ 0.633) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.266.
d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

level, the sample data do not contradict the findings of the researchers.
22. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent the salary in 2008 and 2010, respectively.)
2
𝑠2 𝑠2
(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )
1 2
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1 ⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
𝑛1 − 1 + 𝑛2 − 1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 48700 − 46825) − 0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡60 = = = 0.692
2709.69
𝑠2 𝑠2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇60 ≥ 0.692) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value = 0.246.
Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance
level, we cannot conclude that the starting salary has declined from 2008 to
2010.
23. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent spending by men and women, respectively.)
With 𝑑𝑓 = 40 + 60 − 2 = 98,
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 )−𝑑0 (99.75−82.10)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡98 = = = 2.928.
2( + )1 1 6.0280
𝑇he p-value = 𝑃(𝑇98 ≥ 2.928) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0.002.
Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.01, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance level, we

conclude that the mean amount spent by men is more than that by women.
10-11
24.
a. With 𝛼 = 1 − 0.90 = 0.10 and 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 20 − 1 = 19, 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 =
𝑠 1.61
𝑡0.05,19 = 1.729. 𝑑̅ ± 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 𝐷 = 1.3 ± 1.729 = 1.3 ±
√𝑛 √20
0.62, or [0.68, 1.92].
b. Since the value zero is not included in the [0.68, 1.92] interval, we reject
𝐻0 . At the 10% significance level, we conclude that the mean difference
differs from zero.
25.
∑𝑑 ∑(𝑑𝑖 −𝑑) ̅ 2
a. 𝑑̅ = 𝑛 𝑖 = −1.625; 𝑠𝐷 = √ 𝑛−1 =2.3261
With 𝛼 = 0.05 and 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 8 − 1 = 7, 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 2.365.
𝑠 2.3261
𝑑̅ ± 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 𝐷𝑛 = −1.625 ± 2.365 = −1.625 ± 1.945, or [−3.57, 0.32].
√ √8
b. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
c. Since the value zero is included in the [−3.57, 0.32] interval, we do not
reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude that the mean difference differs from zero
at the 5% significance level.
26.
−2.8−0
a. With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 12 − 1 = 11, 𝑡11 = 5.7 = −1.702
⁄
√12
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇11 ≤ −1.702) is between 0.05 and 010; the exact p-
value = 0.058.

level, we cannot conclude that the mean difference is less than 0.
27.
𝑑̅ −𝑑0 5.6−2
a. With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9, 𝑡9 = 𝑠𝐷 = 6.2⁄ = 1.836.
⁄
√𝑛 √10
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇9 ≥ 1.836) = 0.05.
10-12

level, we cannot conclude that the mean difference is greater than 2.
28.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 0
𝑑̅−𝑑0 1.2−0
b. With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 35 − 1 = 34, 𝑡34 = 𝑠𝐷 = 3.8⁄ = 1.868.
⁄
√𝑛 √35
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇34 ≥ 1.868) is between 0.025 and 0.05; the exact p-
value = 0.035.

we conclude that there is a positive mean difference.
29.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 < 0
(Mean difference between Before and After)
∑𝑑 ∑(𝑑𝑖 −𝑑̅) 2
b. 𝑑̅ = 𝑛 𝑖 = −0.975; 𝑠𝐷 = √ 𝑛−1 = 1.1634
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
With df = 𝑛 − 1 = 8 − 1 = 7, 𝑡7 = 𝑠 = −2.37.
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇7 ≤ −2.37) = 0.025. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05,
we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we conclude that the experiment
increases the magnitude of the observations.

level, we cannot conclude that the experiment increases the magnitude of
the observations.
30.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between Method A and Method B)
∑𝑑 ∑(𝑑𝑖 −𝑑̅) 2
b. 𝑑̅ = 𝑛 𝑖 = −1.8571; 𝑠𝐷 = √ 𝑛−1 = 2.3401
10-13
𝑑̅ −𝑑0
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 7 − 1 = 6, 𝑡6 = 𝑠𝐷 = −2.10
⁄
√𝑛
c. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇6 ≤ −2.10) is between 0.05 and 0.10; the exact p-value
= 0.08.
d. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.10, we reject 𝐻0 . The manager’s assertion is

supported by the data at the 10% significance level.
31.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 5; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 5
∑𝑑 ∑(𝑑𝑖 −𝑑̅) 2
b. 𝑑̅ = 𝑛 𝑖 = 5.6667; 𝑠𝐷 = √ 𝑛−1 = 2.9439
𝑑̅ −𝑑0
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 6 − 1 = 5, 𝑡5 = 𝑠𝐷 = 0.555.
⁄
√𝑛
c. The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇5 ≥ 0.555) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value = 0.301.
d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . The diet center’s claim
is not supported by the data at the 5% significance level.
32.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between the value from Appraiser 1 and Appraiser 2)
∑𝑑 ∑(𝑑𝑖 −𝑑̅) 2
b. 𝑑̅ = 𝑛 𝑖 = −2.1667; 𝑠𝐷 = √ 𝑛−1 = 6.1779
𝑑̅ −𝑑0
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 6 − 1 = 5, 𝑡5 = 𝑠𝐷 − 0.859.
⁄
√𝑛
c. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇5 ≤ −0.859) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.430.
d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude

that the appraisers are inconsistent in their estimates since the test result
shows that the mean difference is not different from 0 at the 5%
significance level.
10-14
33.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between the defects with Brand A and Brand B)
b. 𝑑̅ = −0.3333; 𝑠𝐷 = 1.633, 𝑑𝑓 = 5
𝑑̅ −𝑑0
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 6 − 1 = 5, 𝑡5 = 𝑠𝐷 = −0.50.
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇5 ≤ −0.50) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.638.
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude the
mean difference between Brand A number of defects and the Brand B
number of defects is different from zero.
34.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 < 0.
(Mean difference between the time with New Processor and Existing
Processor)
b. 𝑑̅ = −0.2771; 𝑠𝐷 = 0.1991, 𝑑𝑓 = 6
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡6 = 𝑠 = −3.682
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇6 ≤ −3.682) = 0.005.
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . We conclude that the mean
difference between new and the existing processing time is less than zero.
Yes, there is evidence the new processor is faster than the old processor.
35.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 < 0
(Mean difference between the score on Mock SAT and Real SAT)
b. 𝑑̅ = −30; 𝑠𝐷 = 49.5696; 𝑑𝑓 = 7
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡7 = 𝑠 = −1.712
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇7 ≤ −1.712) is between 0.05 and 0.10; the exact p-value
= 0.065.
10-15

level, the sample data does not support the test-prep provider’s claims.
36.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 100; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 100
(Mean difference between the Competitor’s and Insure-Me premiums)
b. 𝑑̅ = 197.06; 𝑠𝐷 = 443.9387; 𝑑𝑓 = 49
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡49 = 𝑠 = 1.546
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇49 ≥ 1.546) is between 0.05 and 0.10; the exact p-value
= 0.064.

level, we cannot conclude the mean difference between the competitor’s
premium and the “Insure Me” premium is more than $100.
At the 10% significance level, since the p-value < 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . We
conclude that the mean difference between the competitor’s premium and
the “Insure Me” premium is more than $100.
37.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between Electronics and Utilities returns)
b. 𝑑̅ = 2.0933; 𝑠𝐷 = 35.2420; 𝑑𝑓 = 8
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡8 = 𝑠 = 0.178
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇8 ≥ 0.178) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.864.

that the mean returns on Electronics and Utilities differ at the 5%
significance level.
10-16
38.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between Estimated and Actual returns)
b. 𝑑̅ = 0.6286; 𝑠𝐷 = 2.3400; 𝑑𝑓 = 34
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡34 = 𝑠 = 1.589
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇34 ≥ 1.589) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p-
value = 0.122.

level, we cannot conclude the mean difference between the actual
cost/unit and the estimated cost/unit is different from zero.
39.
a. 𝑑̅ = 7; 𝑠𝐷 = 7.4915
(Mean difference between After and Before weights)
With 𝛼 = 1 − 0.95 = 0.05 and 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 49, 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 2.010.
𝑠
𝑑̅ ± 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 𝐷𝑛 = 7 ± 2.010(1.059) = 7 ± 2.13, or [4.87, 9.13].
√
With 95% confidence, the mean gain in weight is between 4.87 and 9.13
pounds.
b. Since 5 is within the 95% confidence interval, we cannot conclude that the
mean gain in weight due to quitting differs from 5 pounds at the 5%
significance level.
40.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 < 0
(Mean difference between Shift Defense and Standard Defense)
b. 𝑑̅ = −0.0262; 𝑠𝐷 = 0.0671; 𝑑𝑓 = 9
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡9 = 𝑠 = −1.235
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇9 ≤ −1.235) is between 0.10 and 0.20; the exact p-value
= 0.124.
10-17
c. Since the p-value = 0.124 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot

conclude that the defensive shift is effective in lowering a power hitter’s
batting average at the 5% significance level.
41.
With 𝛼 = 0.10, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 1.645
𝑝̅1 (1 − 𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1 − 𝑝̅2 )

( 𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼 √ + = (0.85 − 0.90) ±
2 𝑛1 𝑛2
0.85(1−0.85) 0.90(1−0.90)
1.645√ + = −0.05 ± 0.039 or [−0.089, −0.011]
400 350
With 90% confidence, the difference in the proportion is in the

[−0.089, −0.011] interval. Since the interval does not contain the value 0,
we conclude that there is a difference between the population proportions
at the 10% significance level.
42.
50 70
𝑝̅1 = 200 = 0.25; 𝑝̅2 = 250 = 0.28; 𝛼 = 0.05, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 1.96
𝑝̅1 (1 − 𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1 − 𝑝̅2 )

( 𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼 √ + = (0.25 − 0.28) ±
2 𝑛1 𝑛2
0.25(1−0.25) 0.28(1−0.28)
1.96√ + = −0.03 ± 0.082 or [−0.112, 0.052].
200 250
With 95% confidence, the difference in the proportion is in the

[−0.112, 0.052] interval. Since the interval contains the value 0, we cannot
conclude that there is any difference between the population proportions at
43.
250 275 525
a. ̅𝑝1 = 400 = 0.6250; 𝑝̅2 = 400 = 0.6875, ̅𝑝 = 800 = 0.6563
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.6250−0.6875

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −1.86
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.6563 (1−0.6563)( + )
1 2 400 400
10-18
b. The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.86) = 0.031
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . We conclude that 𝑝1 is less

than 𝑝2 at the 5% significance level.
44.
a.
100 172 272
̅𝑝1 = 250 = 0.40; 𝑝̅2 = 400 = 0.43; ̅𝑝 = 650 = 0.4185
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.40−0.43

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −0.75
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.4185(1−0.4185)( + )
1 2 250 400
b. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −0.75) = 0.453.

that the population proportions differ at the 5% significance level.
45.
300 325 625
a. ̅𝑝1 = 600 = 0.50; 𝑝̅2 = 500 = 0.65, ̅𝑝 = 1100 = 0.5682
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.50−0.65

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −5.00
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.5682(1−0.5682)( + )
1 2 600 500
b. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −5.00) = 0 (approximately).
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The population proportions

are different at the 5% significance level.
46.
150 130
a. ̅𝑝1 = 250 = 0.60; 𝑝̅2 = 400 = 0.325.
( 𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 )−𝑑0 (0.600−0.325)− 0.20

𝑧= ̅ (1−𝑝
𝑝 ̅1) 𝑝
̅ (1−𝑝̅2)
= (1−0.325)
= 1.93
√ 1 + 2 √ 0.600(1− 0.600)+0.325
𝑛1 𝑛2 250 400
b. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 1.93) = 0.0536.
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . The difference

between population proportions does not differ from 0.20, at the 5%
10-19
significance level.
47. Let p1 represent the population proportion of girls and p2 the population
proportion of boys.
344 369
a. 𝑝̅1 = 430 = 0.80; 𝑝̅2 = 450 = 0.82
With 𝛼 = 0.05, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 1.96
𝑝̅1 (1−𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1−𝑝̅2 )

( 𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼/2 √ + = (0.80 − 0.82) ±
𝑛1 𝑛2
0.80(1−0.80) 0.82(1−0.82)
1.96√ + = −0.02 ± 0.052 or [−0.072, 0.032].
430 450
The difference in the population proportions is between ―7.2% and 3.2%,

at the 95% confidence level.
b. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≠ 0
c. Since the hypothesized difference of 0 is included in the above 95%

confidence interval , we do not reject 𝐻0 . The study’s claim is not
supported by the sample data at the 5% significance level.
48. Let p1 represent the population proportion of planks that are scrapped under
the old method and p2 represent the population proportion of planks that are
scrapped under the new method.
62 36
a. 𝑝̅1 = 500 = 0.124; 𝑝̅2 = 400 = 0.09
With 𝛼 = 0.05, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 1.96
𝑝̅1 (1−𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1−𝑝̅2 )

( 𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼 √ + = (0.124 − 0.09) ±
2 𝑛1 𝑛2
0.124(1−0.124) 0.09(1−0.09)
1.96√ + = 0.034 ± 0.040 or [−0.006, 0.074]. The
500 400
difference in the population proportions is between ―0.6% and 7.4%, at
10-20
the 95% confidence level.
b. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≠ 0
c. Since the hypothesized difference of 0 is included in the above 95%

confidence interval, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we
cannot conclude the proportions are different between the old and new
methods.
49. Let p1 represent the population proportion in 2008 and p2 the population
proportion in 1980.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0
73+34
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.146, 𝑛1 = 500; 𝑝̅2 = 0.068, 𝑛2 = 500; ̅𝑝 = = 0.107
1000
𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 0.146 − 0.068

𝑧= = = 3.99
1 1
√ ̅𝑝(1 − ̅𝑝 ) ( + ) √0.107(1 − 0.107) ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 𝑛2 500 500
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.99) = 0 (approximately)

we conclude that there has been an increase in the proportion of
individuals marrying outside their race or ethnicity.
50. Let p1 represent the population proportion of boys and p2 the population
proportion of girls.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.
135+70
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.27, 𝑛1 = 500; 𝑝̅2 = 0.14, 𝑛2 = 500 ̅𝑝 = = 0.205
1000
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.27−0.14

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= 5.09
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.205(1−0.205)( + )
1 2 500 500
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 5.09) = 0 (approximately). Since the p-value < 𝛼 =

0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The proportion of boys growing out of asthma is more
than the corresponding proportion of girls, at the 5% significance level.
10-21
c. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0.10; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.10
( 𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 )−𝑑𝑜 (0.27−0.14)− 0.10

𝑧= ̅ (1−𝑝
𝑝 ̅1) 𝑝
̅ (1−𝑝
̅2 )
= (1− 0.14 )
= 1.19
√ 1 + 2 √0.27(1−0.27)+ 0.14
𝑛1 𝑛2 500 500
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 1.19) = 0.117. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do
not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we cannot conclude that the
proportion of boys who grow out of asthma exceeds that of girls by more
than 0.10.
51. Let p1 represent the population proportion of recent jobseekers and p2 the
population proportion of job seekers three years ago.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0
67 58 67+58
𝑝̅1 = 150 = 0.4467; 𝑝̅2 = 140 = 0.4143; ̅𝑝 = = 0.4310
290
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.4467−0.4143

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= 0.56.
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝)(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.4310(1−0.4310)( + )
1 2 150 140
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 0.56) = 0.288. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not
reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude that the proportion of recent workers finding
jobs on LinkedIn is more than the proportion three years ago, at the 5%
significance level.
52. Let p1 represent the population proportion of rooms with defects at Seaside
and p2 represent the population proportion of rooms with defects at
Oceanfront.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≠ 0
21 28 49
b. ̅𝑝1 = = 0.21; 𝑝̅2 = = 0.28; ̅𝑝 = = 0.245
100 100 200
𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 0.21 − 0.28

𝑧= = = −1.15
1 1
√ ̅𝑝(1 − ̅𝑝 ) ( + ) √0.245(1 − 0.245) ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 𝑛2 100 100
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.15) = 0.250
10-22
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significant

level, we cannot conclude that the proportion of rooms with defects at
Seaside is different from the proportion of rooms with defects at
Oceanfront.
d. With 𝛼 = 0.05, 𝑧𝛼/2 = 1.96.
𝑝̅1 (1−𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1−𝑝̅2 )

( 𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 ) ± 𝑧𝛼/2 √ + = (0.21 − 0.28) ±
𝑛1 𝑛2
0.21(1−0.21) 0.28(1−0.28)
1.96√ + = −0.07 ± 0.119 or [−0.189, 0.049].
100 100
The difference in the population proportions is between ―18.9% and

4.9%, at the 95% confidence level. The confidence includes zero which
indicates there is no difference between the population proportions.
53. Let p1 represent the population proportion of parents that expressed

dissatisfaction with the packaging of the old design and p2 represent the
population proportion of parents that expressed dissatisfaction with the
packaging of the new design.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0.10; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.10
85 40
b. ̅𝑝1 = 250 = 0.34; 𝑝̅2 = 250 = 0.16
𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 − 𝑑0 0.34 − 0.16 − 0.10

𝑧= =
𝑝̅1 (1 − 𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1 − 𝑝̅2 ) 0.34(1 − 0.34) 0.16(1 − 0.16)
√ + √( + )
𝑛1 𝑛2 250 250
= 2.11
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 > 2.11) = 0.0174
c. Since the p-value = 0.0174 < 0.05 = 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%

significance level, the results support the engineer’s claim that the new
package design reduces customer complaints by more than 10%.
d. Since the p-value = 0.0174 > 0.01 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1%

significance level, the results do not support the engineer’s claim that the
new package design reduces customer complaints by more than 10%.
10-23
54.
a. Let p1 represent the population proportion of obese African-American
men and p2 the population proportion of obese Caucasian men.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 < 0
36 62 98
𝑝̅1 = 130 = 0.2769; 𝑝̅2 = 180 = 0.3444; ̅𝑝 = 310 = 0.3161
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.2769−0.3444

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −1.26
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.3161(1−0.3161)( + )
1 2 130 180
Since the p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.26) = 0.1038 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject
𝐻0 . We cannot conclude that the proportion of obese African-American
men is less than the proportion of their Caucasian counterparts at the 5%
significance level.
b. Let p1 represent the population proportion of obese African-American

women and p2 the population proportion of obese Caucasian women.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0
35 31 66
𝑝̅1 = = 0.3889; 𝑝̅2 = = 0.2583; ̅𝑝 = = 0.3143
90 120 210
𝑝̅1 − 𝑝̅2 0.3889 − 0.2583

𝑧= = = 2.02
1 1
√ ̅𝑝(1 − ̅𝑝) ( + ) √0.3143(1 − 0.3143) ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 𝑛2 90 120
Since the p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 2.02) = 0.0217 < 0.05 = 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . The
proportion of obese African-American women is greater than the
proportion of their Caucasian counterparts at the 5% significance level.
c. Let p1 represent the population proportion of obese African-Americans

and p2 the population proportion of obese Caucasians.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≠ 0
71 93 164
𝑝̅1 = 220 = 0.3227; ̅𝑝2 = 300 = 0.3100; ̅𝑝 = 520 = 0.3154
10-24
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.3227−0.3100

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= 0.31
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝)(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.3154(1−0.3154)( + )
1 2 220 300
Since the p-value =2𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 0.31) = 0.7566 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject
𝐻0 . The proportion of obese African-American adults is not different from
the proportion of their Caucasian counterparts at the 5% significance
level.
55. Let p1 represent the population proportion of satisfied accounting majors and
p2 the population proportion of satisfied psychology majors.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0.20; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.20
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.50, 𝑛1 = 350; 𝑝̅2 = 0.26, 𝑛2 = 300
( 𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 )−𝑑𝑜 (0.50−0.26)−0.20

𝑧= ̅ (1−𝑝
𝑝 ̅1) 𝑝
̅ (1−𝑝
̅2 )
= = 1.09
√ 1 + 2 √0.50(1−0.50)+ 0.26(1− 0.26)
𝑛1 𝑛2 350 300
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 1.09) = 0.1379.
c. Since the p-value = 0.1379 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . The

proportion of accounting majors satisfied with their career path is not
higher than that of psychology majors by more than 20%.
56. Let p1 represent the population proportion of orders that arrive late with the
new supplier and p2 represent the population proportion of orders that arrive
late with the old supplier.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 < 0
6 27 33
b. ̅𝑝1 = 75 = 0.08; 𝑝̅2 = 150 = 0.18; ̅𝑝 = 225 = 0.1467
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.08−0.18

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −2.00
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.1467(1−0.1467)( + )
1 2 75 150
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −2.00) = 0.0228

we conclude that the proportion of orders that arrive late with the new
10-25
supplier is less than the proportion of orders that arrive late with the old
supplier.
57. Let p1 represent the population proportion of business major who study hard,
and p2 the population proportion of non-business major who study hard.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 < 0
20 48 68
𝑝̅1 = 120 = 0.1667; 𝑝̅2 = 150 = 0.32; ̅𝑝 = 270 = 0.2519
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.1667−0.32

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= −2.88
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.2519(1−0.2519)( + )
1 2 120 150
Since the p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −2.88) = 0.0020 < 0.05 = 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . At the
5% significance level, the proportion of business majors who study hard is
less than the proportion of non-business majors who study hard.
58. Let p1 represent the proportion of all male students who think men and
women are not feasible to be just friends, and p2 the proportion of all female
students who think men and women are not feasible to be just friends.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0.10; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.10
𝑝̅1 = 0.57, 𝑛1 = 100; 𝑝̅2 = 0.32, 𝑛2 = 100
( 𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 )−𝑑𝑜 (0.57−0.32)−0.10

𝑧= ̅ (1−𝑝
𝑝 ̅1) 𝑝
̅ (1−𝑝
̅2 )
= = 2.21
√ 1 + 2 √0.57(1−0.57)+ 0.32(1− 0.32)
𝑛1 𝑛2 100 100
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 2.21) = 0.0136. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05,
we reject 𝐻0 . There is a greater than 10 percentage point difference between
the proportion of male and female students who think that it is not feasible for
men and women to be just friends.
59. Let 1981 refer to population 1 and 2008 refer to population 2.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 + (𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (30−1)4.22 + (30−1)3.92

b. 𝑠𝑝2 = = = 16.425
𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 30+30−2
10-26
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2 = 30 + 30 − 2 = 58,
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 30 − 24) − 0

𝑡58 = = = 5.734
1 1
√𝑠𝑝2 ( +𝑛 ) √16.43 ( 1 + 1 )
𝑛1 2 30 30
c. The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇58 ≥ 5.73) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0
(approximately).
d. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level,

relative to the 1981 levels, 6- to -12-year-old children spend less time
today on household chores.
60. Let men refer to population 1 and women refer to population 2.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 43.87−29.54
b. 𝑧 = = 2 2
= 3.53
𝜎2 𝜎2 √32 +25
√ 1+ 2 100 100
𝑛1 𝑛2
c. The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.53) = 0.0002
d. Since the p-value = 0.0002 < 0.01 = 𝛼, we reject 𝐻0 . We conclude that on

average men spend more money than women on St. Patrick’s Day, at the
61.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between Balanced and European returns)
b. 𝑑̅ = −3.1844; 𝑠𝐷 = 15.7932; 𝑑𝑓 = 8
𝑑̅ − 𝑑0
𝑡8 = 𝑠 = −0.605
𝐷
⁄
√𝑛
c. The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇8 ≤ −0.605) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.562. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0. We cannot
10-27
conclude that the mean returns on Balanced and European funds differ at
62.
𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
(Sample 1 is the sample of men and Sample 2 is the sample of women.)
With 𝑑𝑓 = 50 + 50 − 2 = 98,
( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 )−𝑑0 (194.48−188.88)−0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡28 = = = 3.285.
2( 1 + 1 ) 1.7045
𝑇he p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇98 ≥ 3.285) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0.002.
At the 1% significance level, we conclude that the mean cholesterol levels for
men and women are different.
63.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 ≠ 0
(Mean difference between crop yield with old and new fertilizer)
b. 𝑑̅ = −0.6667; 𝑠𝐷 = 1.633
𝑑̅ −𝑑0
With 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 6 − 1 = 5, 𝑡5 = 𝑠𝐷 = −1.00.
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇5 ≤ −1.00) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.364.

level, the crop yield with the new fertilizer is not different from the crop
yield with the old fertilizer. There is no need for the farmer to be
concerned.
64.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 30; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 30
(Mean difference between after and before pregnancy weight)
36−30
𝑑̅ = 36.00; 𝑠𝐷 = 9.6503; 𝑑𝑓 = 39, 𝑡39 = 9.6503/√40 = 3.932
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇39 ≥ 3.932) is less than 0.005; the exact p-value = 0
(approximately). Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%
10-28
significance level, we conclude that the mean weight gain of women due to
pregnancy is more than 30 pounds.
b. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 35; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 35
(Mean difference between after and before pregnancy weight)
36−35
𝑑̅ = 36.00; 𝑠𝐷 = 9.6503; 𝑑𝑓 = 39, 𝑡39 = 9.6503/√40 = 0.655
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇39 ≥ 0.655) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value =
0.258. Since the p-value> 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0. At the 5%
significance level, we cannot conclude that the mean weight gain of
women due to pregnancy is more than 35 pounds.
65. Let p1 represent the population proportion of females with asthma and p2 the
population proportion of males with asthma.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0
35+12
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.14, 𝑛1 = 250; 𝑝̅2 = 0.06, 𝑛2 = 200; ̅𝑝 = 250+200 = 0.1044
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.14−0.06

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= 2.76
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.1044(1−0.1044)( + )
1 2 250 200
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 2.76) = 0.0029
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The sample data suggest that
females suffer more from asthma than males at the 5% significance level.
66. Let p1 represent the population proportion of young adults (18-24) with
depression and p2 the population proportion of older adults (65+) with
depression.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0
109+68
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.109, 𝑛1 = 1000, 𝑝̅2 = 0.068, 𝑛2 = 1000; 𝑝̅ = 1000+1000 = 0.0885
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.109−0.068

𝑧= 1 1
= 1 1
= 3.23
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 ) √0.0885(1−0.0885)( + )
1 2 1000 1000
10-29
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.23) = 0.0006
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . The proportion of young

adults suffering from depression is greater than that of older adults, at the
67. Let males refer to Population 1 and females refer to Population 2.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≥ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 < 0
𝑠 2𝑠 2 2
( 1+ 2)
𝑛1 𝑛2
b. 𝑑𝑓 = 2 2 = 13 (rounded down)
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
+
𝑛1 −1 𝑛2 −1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 572.50 − 601.25) − 0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡146 = = = −1.328
21.6455
𝑠2 𝑠2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
value = 0.104.
c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . The sample data do not
support the claim that females outscore males on the writing test at the
68. Let p1 represent the proportion of on-time flights at JFK and p2 the proportion
of on-time flights at O'Hare.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≤ 0.05; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 > 0.05
b. 𝑝̅1 = 0.70, 𝑛1 = 200; 𝑝̅2 = 0.63, 𝑛2 = 200
( 𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 )−𝑑𝑜 ( 0.70−0.63)− 0.05

𝑧= ̅ (1−𝑝
𝑝 ̅1) 𝑝
̅ (1−𝑝̅2)
= (1− 0.70 ) 0.63 (1−0.63)
= 0.42
√ 1 + 2 √ 0.70 +
𝑛1 𝑛2 200 200
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 0.42) = 1 − 0.6628 = 0.3372
c. Since the p-value = 0.3372 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0. At the 5%
significance level, we cannot conclude that the proportion of on-time flights
10-30
at JFK is more than 5 percentage points higher than that of O’Hare.
69. The program is effective if there are fewer loss of hours due to accidents.
a. 𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 0
𝑑̅ −𝑑
b. 𝑑̅ = 2.50; 𝑠𝐷 = 2.9388; 𝑑𝑓 = 11, 𝑡11 = 𝑠𝐷 0 = 2.947
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇11 ≥ 2.947) is between 0.005 and 0.01; the exact p-
value = 0.007.
c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . We conclude that new safety
program is effective at the 5% significance level.
10-31
Case Study 10.1
Health Information Technology

Average 18.9085 20.0370
Standard Deviation 10.7354 22.8713
Sample Size 20 20
1. The information technology industry averaged a return of 20.04% against

18.91% for the health industry. However, a higher standard deviation for the
information technology industry (22.87% versus 10.74%) indicates that the
returns in this industry are riskier as compared to the health industry.
2.
𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≠ 0
(Samples 1 and 2 represent return from Health and Information Technology
industries, respectively.)
2
𝑠2 𝑠2
(𝑛1 + 𝑛2 )
1 2
𝑠2 𝑠2
( 1 ⁄𝑛1 ) ( 2⁄𝑛2 )
𝑛1 − 1 + 𝑛2 − 1
( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 (18.9085 − 20.0370) − 0

𝑡𝑑𝑓 = 𝑡26 = = = −0.20
5.6495
𝑠2 𝑠2
√ 1+ 2
𝑛1 𝑛2
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑇26 ≤ −0.20) is more than 0.20; the exact p-value = 0.844.
Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . Therefore, we cannot
conclude that the average returns differ between the two industries, at the 5%
significance level. This is true despite the seemingly different sample mean
returns.
10-32
Case Study 10.2
1. LRZ improves performance if swim time in bathing suit is more than the swim
time in LZR. We specify the competing hypothesis as
𝐻0 : 𝜇𝐷 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇𝐷 > 0.
(Mean difference between swim times in Bathing Suit and LZR)
𝑑̅ −𝑑
𝑑̅ = 0.146; 𝑠𝐷 = 0.1577; 𝑑𝑓 = 9, 𝑡9 = 𝑠𝐷 0 = 2.928
⁄
√𝑛
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇9 ≥ 2.928) is between 0.005 and 0.01; the exact p-value =
0.008. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 .
2. The sample data support FINA’s decision as swimmers wearing a LZR Racer
swim faster than swimmers wearing a bathing suit, at the 5% significance level.
10-33
Case Study 10.3
1. Let Populations 1 and 2 refer to the starting salaries in San Francisco and
Denver, respectively.
𝐻0 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 ≤ 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝜇1 − 𝜇2 > 0
𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 48900 − 40900

𝑧= = = 3.70
2 2
𝜎2 𝜎22 √16000 + 14500
√ 1 100 100
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.70) = 0.0001. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 .
At the 5% significance level, we conclude that the average starting salary in San
Francisco is greater than the average starting salary in Denver.
2. Let p1 and p2 represent the proportion of residents in their 20s in San Francisco
and Denver, respectively.
𝐻0 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 = 0; 𝐻𝐴 : 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 ≠ 0
20+22
𝑝̅1 = 0.20, 𝑛1 = 100; ̅𝑝2 = 0.22, 𝑛2 = 100; ̅𝑝 = = 0.21
200
𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2
𝑧= 1 1
= −0.35
√ ̅𝑝(1− ̅𝑝 )(𝑛 +𝑛 )
1 2
The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −0.35) = 0.7264. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do
not reject 𝐻0 . The proportion of the residents in their 20’s is not different
between San Francisco and Denver, at the 5% significance level.
10-34

Business Statistics Communicating With Numbers 3rd Edition Jaggia Solutions Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Statistics Communicating With Numbers 3rd Edition Jaggia Solutions Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Statistics Communicating

with Numbers 3rd Edition Jaggia

Chapter 10. Statistical Inference

𝜎12 𝜎22 98.2 87.4

With 95% confidence, the difference between the population means is

With 95% confidence, the difference between the population means is

(𝑛1 − 1)𝑠12 + (𝑛2 − 1)𝑠22 (10 − 1)2.52 + (12 − 1)4.42

b. At 𝛼 = 0.10, since the p-value < α, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 10% significance

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 249−262)−0

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 249 − 262) − 0

b. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

b. 𝑥̅1 = 9.40; 𝑠1 = 1.6142

(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (8−1)1.61422 +(8−1)1.01552

b. 𝑥̅1 = 98.3333; 𝑠1 = 16.2686

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 98.3333−111.6667)−0

The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≥ 3.00) = 0.0013

The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −5.81) = 0 (approximately)

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 138,000−130,000)−0

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude

The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 > 1.53) = 0.126

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 77.40−74.10)−0

It is necessary to assume that each population is normally distributed as

deviations are not equal.

(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (8−1)90.782 +(10−1)148.222

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 ( 2613.63−2485.10)−0

c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level,

d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 485 − 340) − 120

(𝑛1 −1)𝑠12 +(𝑛2 −1)𝑠22 (18−1)32.002 +(38−1)24.002

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 95.00 − 48.00) − 30

The p-value = 2𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.48) = 0.1388

c. Since the p-value = 0.1388 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5%

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (98817.30−110204.17)−0

c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level, we

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (9.7733−6.2833)−0

c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level,

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 32.0938 − 32.7500) − 0

c. At the 5% significance level, since the p-value > 𝛼 , we do not reject 𝐻0 . At

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅ 2 )−𝑑0 (68.0556−64.0833)−2.5

d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

( 𝑥̅1 − 𝑥̅2 ) − 𝑑0 ( 48700 − 46825) − 0

( 𝑥̅ 1 −𝑥̅2 )−𝑑0 (99.75−82.10)−0

Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.01, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance level, we

With 𝛼 = 0.05 and 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 8 − 1 = 7, 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 2.365.

b. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

The p-value = 𝑃(𝑇9 ≥ 1.836) = 0.05.

b. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance

c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance level,

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance

d. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.10, we reject 𝐻0 . The manager’s assertion is

d. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 5% significance

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.05, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot conclude

c. Since the p-value > 𝛼 = 0.01, we do not reject 𝐻0 . At the 1% significance

c. Since the p-value = 0.124 > 0.05 = 𝛼, we do not reject 𝐻0 . We cannot

𝑝̅1 (1 − 𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1 − 𝑝̅2 )

With 90% confidence, the difference in the proportion is in the

𝑝̅1 (1 − 𝑝̅1 ) 𝑝̅2 (1 − 𝑝̅2 )

With 95% confidence, the difference in the proportion is in the

𝑝̅1 −𝑝̅2 0.6250−0.6875

b. The p-value = 𝑃(𝑍 ≤ −1.86) = 0.031

c. Since the p-value < 𝛼 = 0.05, we reject 𝐻0 . We conclude that 𝑝1 is less