CH 0910

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations
Chapter 9 Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations
LEARNING OBJECTIVES The main objective of Chapter 9 is to help you to learn how to test hypotheses on single populations, thereby enabling you to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Understand the logic of hypothesis testing and know how to establish null and alternate hypotheses. Understand Type I and Type II errors and know how to solve for Type II errors. Know how to implement the HTAB system to test hypotheses. Test hypotheses about a single population mean when is known. Test hypotheses about a single population mean when is unknown. Test hypotheses about a single population proportion. Test hypotheses about a single population variance. CHAPTER TEACHING STRATEGY For some instructors, this chapter is the cornerstone of the first statistics course. Hypothesis testing presents the logic in which ideas, theories, etc., are scientifically
examined. The student can be made aware that much of the development of concepts to this point including sampling, level of data measurement, descriptive tools such as mean and standard deviation, probability, and distributions pave the way for testing hypotheses. Often students (and instructors) will say "Why do we need to test this hypothesis when we can make a decision by examining the data?" Sometimes it is true that examining the data could allow hypothesis decisions to be made. However, by using the methodology and structure of hypothesis testing even in "obvious" situations, the researcher has added credibility and rigor to his/her findings. Some statisticians actually report findings in a court of law as an expert witness. Others report their findings in a journal, to the public, to the corporate board, to a client, or to their manager. In each case, by using the hypothesis testing method rather than a "seat of the pants" judgment, the researcher stands on a much firmer foundation by using the principles of hypothesis testing and random sampling. Chapter 9 brings together many of the tools developed to this point and formalizes a procedure for testing hypotheses. The statistical hypotheses are set up as to contain all possible decisions. The two-tailed test always has = and in the null and alternative hypothesis. One-tailed tests are presented with = in the null hypothesis and either > or < in the alternative hypothesis. If in doubt, the researcher should use a two-tailed test. Chapter 9 begins with a two-tailed test example. Usually, that which the researcher wants to demonstrate true or prove true is usually set up as an alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the new theory or idea is not true, the status quo is still true, or that there is no difference. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true before the process begins. Some researchers liken this procedure to a court of law where the defendant is presumed innocent (assume null is true - nothing has happened). Evidence is brought before the judge or jury. If enough evidence is presented, the null hypothesis (defendant innocent) can no longer be accepted or assume true. The null hypothesis is rejected as not true and the alternate hypothesis is accepted as true by default. Emphasize that the researcher needs to make a decision after examining the observed statistic. Some of the key concepts in this chapter are one-tailed and two-tailed test and Type I and Type II error. In order for a one-tailed test to be conducted, the problem must include some suggestion of a direction to be tested. If the student sees such words as greater, less than, more than, higher, younger, etc., then he/she knows to use a one-tail test. If no direction is given (test to determine if there is a "difference"), then a two-tailed test is called for. Ultimately, students will see that the only effect of using a one-tailed test versus a two-tailed test is on the critical table value. A one-tailed test uses all of the value of alpha in one tail. A two-tailed test splits alpha and uses alpha/2 in each tail thus creating a critical value that is further out in the distribution. The result is that (all things being the same) it is more difficult to reject the null hypothesis with a two-tailed test. Many computer packages such as MINITAB include in the results a p-value. If you designate that the hypothesis test is a two-tailed test, the computer will double the p-value so that it can be compared directly to alpha. In discussing Type I and Type II errors, there are a few things to consider. Once a decision is made regarding the null hypothesis, there is a possibility that the decision is
correct or that an error has been made. Since the researcher virtually never knows for certain whether the null hypothesis was actually true or not, a probability of committing one of these errors can be computed. Emphasize with the students that a researcher can never commit a Type I error and a Type II error at the same time. This is so because a Type I error can only be committed when the null hypothesis is rejected and a Type II error can only be committed when the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis. Type I and Type II errors are important concepts for managerial students to understand even beyond the realm of statistical hypothesis testing. For example, if a manager decides to fire or not fire an employee based on some evidence collected, he/she could be committing a Type I or a Type II error depending on the decision. If the production manager decides to stop the production line because of evidence of faulty raw materials, he/she might be committing a Type I error. On the other hand, if the manager fails to shut the production line down even when faced with evidence of faulty raw materials, he/she might be committing a Type II error. The student can be told that there are some widely accepted values for alpha (probability of committing a Type I error) in the research world and that a value is usually selected before the research begins. On the other hand, since the value of Beta (probability of committing a Type II error) varies with every possible alternate value of the parameter being tested, Beta is usually examined and computed over a range of possible values of that parameter. As you can see, the concepts of hypothesis testing are difficult and represent higher levels of learning (logic, transfer, etc.). Student understanding of these concepts will improve as you work your way through the techniques in this chapter and in chapter 10. CHAPTER OUTLINE 9.1 Introduction to Hypothesis Testing Types of Hypotheses Research Hypotheses Statistical Hypotheses Substantive Hypotheses Using the HTAB System to Test Hypotheses Rejection and Non-rejection Regions Type I and Type II errors Testing Hypotheses About a Population Mean Using the z Statistic ( known) Using a Sample Standard Deviation Testing the Mean with a Finite Population Using the p-Value to Test Hypotheses Using the Critical Value Method to Test Hypotheses Using the Computer to Test Hypotheses about a Population Mean Using the z Test Testing Hypotheses About a Population Mean Using the t Statistic ( unknown) Using the Computer to Test Hypotheses about a Population Mean Using the t Test
9.2
9.3
9.4 9.5 9.6
Testing Hypotheses About a Proportion Using the Computer to Test Hypotheses about a Population Proportion Testing Hypotheses About a Variance Solving for Type II Errors Some Observations About Type II Errors Operating Characteristic and Power Curves Effect of Increasing Sample Size on the Rejection Limits
KEY TERMS Alpha( ) Alternative Hypothesis Beta( ) Critical Value Critical Value Method Hypothesis Hypothesis Testing Level of Significance Nonrejection Region Null Hypothesis Observed Significance Level Observed Value One-tailed Test Operating-Characteristic Curve (OC) p-Value Method Power Power Curve Rejection Region Research Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Substantive Result Two-Tailed Test Type I Error Type II Error
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS IN CHAPTER 9 9.1 a) Ho: = 25 Ha: 25

x
= 28.1
n = 57
= 8.46
zc = 2.575
= .01
For two-tail, /2 = .005

x
z=
28.1 25 8.46 = 2.77 57
observed z = 2.77 > zc = 2.575
Reject the null hypothesis b) from Table A.5, inside area between z = 0 and z = 2.77 is .4972 p-value = .5000 - .4972 = .0028 Since the p-value of .0028 is less than Reject the null hypothesis c) critical mean values:
xc s zc = n
x c 25 8.46 57
x x x
c c
= .005, the decision is to:
2.575 =
= 25 2.885
= 27.885 (upper value) = 22.115 (lower value)
9.2 Ho: = 7.48 Ha: < 7.48

x
= 6.91
n = 24
= 1.21
zc = -2.33
=.01
For one-tail, = .01

x
z =
6.91 7.48 1.21 = -2.31 24
observed z = -2.31 > zc = -2.33 Fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.3 a) Ho: = 1,200 Ha: > 1,200
x
= 1,215
n = 113
= 100
= .10
For one-tail, = .10

x
zc = 1.28
z =
1,215 1,200 100 113
= 1.59
observed z = 1.59 > zc = 1.28 Reject the null hypothesis b) Probability > observed z = 1.59 is .0559 which is less than = .10. Reject the null hypothesis. c) Critical mean value:
xc s zc = n x c 1,200 100 1.28 = 113
x
c
= 1,200 + 12.04
x
Since calculated x = 1,215 which is greater than the critical the null hypothesis. 9.4 Ho: = 82 Ha: < 82
x
= 1212.04, reject
= 78.125
n = 32
= 9.184
= .01
z.01 = -2.33
x
z=
78.125 82 9.184 = -2.39 32
Since observed z = -2.39 < z.01 = -2.33 Reject the null hypothesis
Statistically, we can conclude that urban air soot is significantly lower. From a business and community point-of-view, assuming that the sample result is representative of how the air actually is now, is a reduction of suspended particles from 82 to 78.125 really an important reduction in air pollution? Certainly it marks an important first step and perhaps a significant start. Whether or not it would really make a difference in the quality of life for people in the city of St. Louis remains to be seen. Most likely, politicians and city chamber of commerce folks would jump on such results as indications of improvement in city conditions. 9.5 H0: = $424.20 Ha: $424.20
x
= $432.69
n = 54
= $33.90
z.025 = + 1.96
= .05
2-tailed test, /2 = .025

x
z =
432.69 424.20 33.90 54
= 1.84
Since the observed z = 1.85 < z.025 = 1.96, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 9.6 H0: = $62,600 Ha: < $62,600
x
= $58,974
n = 18
= $7,810
z.01 = -2.33
= .01
1-tailed test, = .01

x
z =
58,974 62,600 7,810 = -1.97 18
Since the observed z = -1.97 > z.01 = -2.33, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

0
9.7 H : = 5 Ha: 5
x
= 5.0611
n = 42
= 0.2803
z.05 = + 1.645
= .10
2-tailed test, /2 = .05

x
z =
5.0611 5 0.2803 = 1.41 42
Since the observed z = 1.41 < z.05 = 1.645, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 9.8 Ho: = 18.2 Ha: < 18.2
x
= 15.6
n = 32
= 2.3
z.10 = -1.28
= .10
For one-tail, = .10,

x
z =
15.6 18.2 2.3 32
= -6.39
Since the observed z = -6.39 < z.10 = -1.28, the decision is to Reject the null hypothesis 9.9 Ho: = $4,292 Ha: < $4,292
x
= $4,008
n = 55
= $386
z.01 = -2.33
= .01
For one-tailed test, = .01,

x
z =
$4,008 $4,292 $386 = -5.46 55
Since the observed z = -5.46 < z.01 = -2.33, the decision is to Reject the null hypothesis
The CEO could use this information as a way of discrediting the Runzheimer study and using her own figures in recruiting people and in discussing relocation options. In such a case, this could be a substantive finding. However, one must ask if the difference between $4,292 and $4,008 is really an important difference in monthly rental expense. Certainly, Paris is expensive either way. However, an almost $300 difference in monthly rental cost is a non trivial amount for most people and therefore might be considered substantive. 9.10 Ho: = 123 Ha: > 123 = .05
x
n = 40
40 people were sampled
= 132.36
This is a one-tailed test. Since the p-value = .016, we reject the null hypothesis at = .05. The average water usage per person is greater than 123 gallons. 9.11 n = 20 Ho: = 16 Ha: 16 For two-tail test, /2 = .025,
x 16.45 16 = s 3.59 t = n 20
x
= 16.45
s = 3.59
df = 20 - 1 = 19
= .05
critical t.025,19 = 2.093
= 0.56
Observed t = 0.56 < t.025,19 = 2.093 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.12 n = 51 Ho: = 60 Ha: < 60 For one-tail test, = .01
x 58.42 60 = s t = 25.68 n 51
= 58.42
s2 = 25.68
df = 51 - 1 = 50
= .01
critical t.01,50 = -2.403
= -2.23
10
Observed t = -2.33 > t.01,50 = -2.403 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis
9.13
n = 11
= 1,235.36
s = 103.81
df = 11 - 1 = 10
= .05
Ho: = 1,160 Ha: > 1,160 For one-tail test, = .05 t = critical t.05,10 = 1.812
x 1,236.36 1,160 = s 103.81 = 2.44 n 11
Observed t = 2.44 > t.05,10 = 1.812 The decision is to Reject the null hypothesis
9.14
n = 20
= 8.37
s = .189
df = 20-1 = 19
= .01
Ho: = 8.3 Ha: 8.3 For two-tail test, /2 = .005

x 8.37 8.3 = s .189 t = = 1.66 n 20
critical t.005,19 = 2.861
Observed t = 1.66 < t.005,19 = 2.861 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis
9.15 n = 12
= 1.85083
s = .02353
df = 12 - 1 = 11
= .10
H0: = 1.84 Ha: 1.84
11
For a two-tailed test, /2 = .05 t =
critical t.05,11 = 1.796
x 1.85083 1.84 = s .02353 = 1.59 n 12
Since t = 1.59 < t11,.05 = 1.796, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 9.16 n = 25 Ho: = $1.16 Ha: > $1.16 For one-tail test, = .01 t = Critical t.01,24 = 2.492 = 1.1948 s = .0889 df = 25 - 1 = 24 = .01
x 1.1948 1.16 = s .0889 = 1.96 n 25
Observed t = 1.96 < t.01,24 = 2.492 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.17 n = 19 = .05
= $31.67
s = $1.29
df = 19 1 = 18
H0: = $32.28 Ha: $32.28 Two-tailed test, /2 = .025 t.025,18 = + 2.101
x 31.67 32.28 = s 1.29 t = = -2.06 n 19
The observed t = -2.06 > t.025,18 = -2.101, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.18 n = 26 H0: = 19 Ha: 19
x
= 19.534 minutes
s = 4.100 minutes
= .05
12
Two-tailed test, /2 = .025, Observed t value = 0.66
critical t value = + 2.06
Since the observed t = 0.66 < critical t value = 2.06, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. Since the Excel p-value = .256 > /2 = .025 and MINITAB p-value =.513 > .05, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. She would not conclude that her city is any different from the ones in the national survey. 9.19 Ho: p = .45 Ha: p > .45 n = 310
p
= .465
= .05 z.05 = 1.645
For one-tail, = .05

p p = .465 .45 (.45)(.55) 310
z =
pq n
= 0.53
observed z = 0.53 < z.05 = 1.645 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.20 Ho: p = 0.63 Ha: p < 0.63 n = 100 x = 55
= p x 55 = = .55 n 100
For one-tail, = .01

p p = .465 .45
z.01 = -2.33
z =
pq n
(.45)(.55) = -1.66 310
observed z = -1.66 > zc = -2.33
13
The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis 9.21 Ho: p = .29 Ha: p .29
x 207 = = .28 n 740
n = 740
x = 207
= p
= .05
For two-tail, /2 = .025

p p = .28 .29
z.025 = 1.96
z =
p q n
(.29)(.71) = -0.60 740
observed z = -0.60 > zc = -1.96 The decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis p-Value Method: z = -0.60 from Table A.5, area = .2257 Area in tail = .5000 - .2257 = .2743 .2743 > .025 Again, the decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis Solving for critical values:
c p p
z =
p q n
14
1.96 =
c .29 p (.29)(.71) 740
c = .29 .033 p
.257 and .323

= .28 not outside critical values in tails Sample p = p
Again, the decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis
9.22 Ho: p = .48 Ha: p .48 n = 380

= p
x = 164
= .01
/2 = .005
z.005 = +2.575
x 164 = = .4316 n 380
p p
z =
p q n
.4316 .48 (.48)(.52) = -1.89 380
Since the observed z = -1.89 is greater than z.005= -2.575, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to declare that the proportion is any different than .48. 9.23 Ho: p = .79 Ha: p < .79 n = 415
= p
x = 303
= .01
z.01 = -2.33
x 303 = = .7301 n 415
p p
z =
p q n
7301 .79 (.79)(.21) = -3.00 415
15
Since the observed z = -3.00 is less than z.01= -2.33, The decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.24 Ho: p = .31 Ha: p .31 n = 600
= p
x = 200
= .10
/2 = .05
z.005 = +1.645
x 200 = = .3333 n 600
p p
z =
p q n
.3333 .31 (.31)(.69) = 1.23 600
Since the observed z = 1.23 is less than z.005= 1.645, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to declare that the proportion is any different than .48. Ho: p = .24 Ha: p < .24 n = 600
= p
x = 130
= .05
z.05 = -1.645
x 130 = = .2167 n 600
p p
z =
pq n
.2167 .24 (.24)(.76) = -1.34 600
Since the observed z = -1.34 is greater than z.05= -1.645, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to declare that the proportion is less than .24. 9.25 Ho: p = .18 Ha: p > .18 n = 376
p
= .22
= .01
one-tailed test,
p p =
z.01 = 2.33
.22 .18 (.18)(.82) = 2.02 376
z =
p q n
16
Since the observed z = 2.02 is less than z.01= 2.33, The decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to declare that the proportion is greater than .18. 9.26 Ho: p = .32 Ha: p < .32 n = 118 x = 22
= p x 22 = = .186 n 118
= .01
For one-tailed test,

p p =
z.05 = -1.645
.186 .32 (.32)(.68) = -3.12 118
z =
pq n
Observed z = -3.12 < z.05 1.645 Since the observed z = -3.12 is less than z.05= -1.645, The decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.27 Ho: p = .47 Ha: p .47 n = 67 x = 40 = .05 z.025 = +1.96 /2 = .025
For a two-tailed test,

= p x 40 = = .597 n 67
p p
z =
p q n
.597 .47 (.47)(.53) = 2.08 67
Since the observed z = 2.08 is greater than z.025= 1.96, The decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.28 a) H0: 2 = 20 Ha: 2 > 20 2.05,14 = 23.6848 = .05 n = 15 df = 15 1 = 14 s2 = 32
17
2 =
(15 1)(32) = 22.4 20
Since 2 = 22.4 < 2.05,14 = 23.6848, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. b) H0: 2 = 8.5 Ha: 2 8.5 2.05,21 = 32.6705 2 =
(22 1)(17) = 42 8.5
= .10
/2 = .05
n = 22
df = n-1 = 21
s2 = 17
Since 2 = 42 > 2.05,21 = 32.6705, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. c) H0: 2 = 45 Ha: 2 < 45 2 .01,7 = 18.4753 2 =
(8 1)(4.12) 2 = 2.64 45
= .01
n=8
df = n 1 = 7
s = 4.12
Since 2 = 2.64 < 2.01,7 = 18.4753, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. d) H0: 2 = 5 Ha: 2 5 = .05 /2 = .025 n = 11 df = 11 1 = 10 s2 = 1.2
2.025,10 = 20.4831 2 =
2.975,10 = 3.24697
(11 1)(1.2) = 2.4 5
Since 2 = 2.4 < 2.975,10 = 3.24697, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
18
9.29 H0: 2 = 14 Ha: 2 14 2.025,11 = 21.92 2 =
= .05
/2 = .025
n = 12
df = 12 1 = 11
s2 = 30.0833
2.975,11 = 3.81575
(12 1)(30.0833) = 23.64 14
Since 2 = 23.64 < 2.025,11 = 21.92, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.30 H0: 2 = .001 Ha: 2 > .001 2.01,15 = 30.5779 2 =
(16 1)(.00144667) = 21.7 .001
= .01
n = 16
df = 16 1 = 15
s2 = .00144667
Since 2 = 21.7 < 2.01,15 = 30.5779, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 9.31 H0: 2 = 199,996,164 Ha: 2 199,996,164 2.05,12 = 21.0261 2 = = .10 /2 = .05 2 s = 832,089,743.7 2.95,12 = 5.22603 n = 13 df =13 - 1 = 12
(13 1)(832,089,743.7) = 49.93 199,996,164
Since 2 = 49.93 > 2.05,12 = 21.0261, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. The variance has changed. 9.32 H0: 2 = .04 Ha: 2 > .04 2.01,6 = 16.8119 2 =
(7 1)(.1156) = 17.34 .04
= .01
n=7
df = 7 1 = 6
s = .34
s2 = .1156
Since 2 = 17.34 > 2.01,6 = 16.8119, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis
19
9.33
Ho: = 100 Ha: < 100 n = 48 = .10
= 99 z.10 = -1.28
xc
= 14
a)
zc =
x c 100 14 -1.28 = 48
= 97.4
xc
z =
97.4 99 14 = -0.79 48
from Table A.5, area for z = -0.79 is .2852
= .2852 + .5000 = .7852

b) = .05 z.05 = -1.645
xc
zc =
x c 100 14 -1.645 = 48
x
c
= 96.68
xc
z =
96.68 99 14 = -1.15 48
20
= .3749 + .5000 = .8749

c) = .01 z.01 = -2.33
xc
zc =
x c 100 14 -2.33 = 48
x
c
= 95.29
xc
z =
95.29 99 14 = -1.84 48
= .4671 + .5000 = .9671

d) As gets smaller (other variables remaining constant), beta gets larger. Decreasing the probability of committing a Type I error increases the probability of committing a Type II error if other variables are held constant. = .05 = 100 zc = -1.645
xc
9.34
n = 48
= 14
a) a = 98.5
n
zc =
x c 100 14 -1.645 = 48
= 96.68
21
xc
z =
96.68 99 14 = -0.90 48
= .3159 + .5000 = .8159

b) a = 98
x
c
zc = -1.645
= 96.68
xc
zc =
96.68 98 14 = = -0.65 48
= .2422 + .5000 = .7422

c) a = 97
x
c
z.05 = -1.645
= 96.68
xc
z =
96.68 97 14 = -0.16 48
= .0636 + .5000 = .5636

d) a = 96
x
c
z.05 = -1.645
= 97.4
xc
z =
96.68 96 14 = 0.34 48
from Table A.5, area for z = 0.34 is .1331
22
= .5000 - .1331 = .3669

e) As the alternative value get farther from the null hypothesized value, the probability of committing a Type II error reduces. (All other variables being held constant). 9.35 Ho: = 50 Ha: 50 a = 53 n = 35
=7
= .01 z.005 = 2.575
Since this is two-tailed, /2 = .005

xc
zc =
2.575 =
x c 50 7 35
= 50 3.05
46.95 and 53.05

xc
z =
53.05 53 7 35
= 0.04
from Table A.5 for z = 0.04, area = .0160 Other end:

xc
z =
46.9 53 7 = = -5.11 35
Area associated with z = -5.11 is .5000
= .5000 + .0160 = .5160

9.36 a) Ho: p = .65
23
Ha: p < .65 n = 360 = .05

c p p
pa = .60
z.05 = -1.645
zc =
p q n c .65 p
-1.645 =
(.65)(.35) 360
= .65 - .041 = .609

.609 .60 (.60)(.40) 360
c p p
z =
p q n
= -0.35
= .5000 - .1368 = .3632

b) pa = .55
p
c
z.05 = -1.645
= .609
c P p P Q = n
.609 .55 (.55)(.45) 360
z =
= -2.25
= .5000 - .4878 = .0122

c) pa = .50
p
c
z.05 = -1.645
= .609
c p p
.609 .50 (.50)(.50) = -4.14 360
z =
p q n
from Table A.5, the area for z = -4.14 is .5000
24
= .5000 - .5000 = .0000

9.37 n = 58 H0: = 44 Ha: 44 = 45.1
= 8.7
= .05
/2 = .025
z.025 = 1.96
45.1 44 8.7 z = = 0.96 58
Since z = 0.96 < zc = 1.96, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
x c 44 8.7 + 1.96 = 58
2.239 =
x
c
- 44
= 46.239 and 41.761
For 45 years:
46.29 45 8.7 z = = 1.08 58
from Table A.5, the area for z = 1.08 is .3599
= .5000 + .3599 = .8599

Power = 1 - = 1 - .8599 = .1401 For 46 years:
46.239 46 8.7 z = = 0.21 58
From Table A.5, the area for z = 0.21 is .0832
= .5000 + .0832 = .5832
25
Power = 1 - = 1 - .5832 = .4168 For 47 years: z =

46.9 47 8.7 58
= -0.67
From Table A.5, the area for z = -0.67 is .2486
= .5000 - .2486 = .2514

Power = 1 - = 1 - .2514 = .7486 For 48 years:
46.248 48 8.7 z = = 1.54 58
From Table A.5, the area for z = 1.54 is .4382
= .5000 - .4382 = .0618

Power = 1 - = 1 - .0618 = .9382
26
9.38 H0: p= .71 Ha: p < .71 n = 463 z.10 = -1.28

p p = .6998 .71 (.71)(.29) = -0.48 463
x = 324
324 = .6998 463
= .10
z =
p q n
27
Type II error:
c: Solving for the critical proportion, p
c p p
zc =
p q n
-1.28 =
c .71 p (.71)(.29) 463
= .683
For pa = .69
.683 .69 (.69)(.31) 463
z =
= -0.33
From Table A.5, the area for z = -0.33 is .1293 The probability of committing a Type II error = .1293 + .5000 = .6293 For pa = .66
.683 .66 (.66)(.34) 463
z =
= 1.04
From Table A.5, the area for z = 1.04 is .3508 The probability of committing a Type II error = .5000 - .3508 = .1492 For pa = .60
.683 .60 (.60)(.40) 493
z =
= 4.61
From Table A.5, the area for z = 4.61 is .5000 The probability of committing a Type II error = .5000 - .5000 = .0000
28
9.39 1) Ho: = 36 Ha: 36

x
2) z =
3) = .01 4) two-tailed test, /2 = .005, z.005 = + 2.575 If the observed value of z is greater than 2.575 or less than -2.575, the decision will be to reject the null hypothesis. 5) n = 63,
x
x
= 38.4,
= 5.93
6) z =
38.4 36 5.93 = = 3.21 63
7) Since the observed value of z = 3.21 is greater than z.005 = 2.575, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 8) The mean is likely to be greater than 36. 9.40 1) Ho: = 7.82 Ha: < 7.82 2) The test statistic is
x s t = n
3) = .05 4) df = n - 1 = 16, t.05,16 = -1.746. If the observed value of t is less than -1.746, then the decision will be to reject the null hypothesis. 5) n = 17
x
= 7.01
s = 1.69
7.01 7.82 x 1.69 s 6) t = = = -1.98 n 17
7) Since the observed t = -1.98 is less than the table value of t = -1.746, the decision
29
is to reject the null hypothesis. 8) The population mean is significantly less than 7.82. 9.41 a. 1) Ho: p = .28 Ha: p > .28
p p pq n
2) z = 3) = .10
4) This is a one-tailed test, z.10 = 1.28. If the observed value of z is greater than 1.28, the decision will be to reject the null hypothesis. 5) n = 783
= p
x = 230
230 = .2937 783
.2937 .28 (.28)(.72) 6) z = 783
= 0.85
7) Since z = 0.85 is less than z.10 = 1.28, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 8) There is not enough evidence to declare that p is not .28. b. 1) Ho: p = .61 Ha: p .61
p p pq n
2) z = 3) = .05
4) This is a two-tailed test, z.025 = + 1.96. If the observed value of z is greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96, then the decision will be to reject the null hypothesis. 5) n = 401
p
= .56
30
6) z =
.56 .61 (.61)(.39) 401
= -2.05
7) Since z = -2.05 is less than z.025 = -1.96, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 8) The population proportion is not likely to be .61. 9.42 1) H0: 2 = 15.4 Ha: 2 > 15.4 2) 2 =
(n 1) s 2
3) = .01 4) n = 18, df = 17, one-tailed test
2.01,17 = 33.4087 5) s2 = 29.6 6) =

2
(n 1) s 2
(17)( 29.6) = 32.675 15.4
7) Since the observed 2 = 32.675 is less than 33.4087, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 8) The population variance is not significantly more than 15.4. 9.43 a) H0: = 130 Ha: > 130 n = 75
= 12
x
c
= .01
z.01 = 2.33
a = 135
Solving for
xc
zc =
31
2.33 =
x c 130 12 75
= 133.23
133.23 135 12 z = = -1.28 75
from table A.5, area for z = -1.28 is .3997
= .5000 - .3997 = .1003

b) H0: p = .44 Ha: p < .44 n = 1095 = .05
c p p
pa = .42
z.05 = -1.645
zc =
p q n
-1.645 =
c .44 p (.44)(.56) 1095
c = .4153 p
z =
.4153 .42 (.42)(.58) 1095
= -0.32
from table A.5, area for z = -0.32 is .1255 = .5000 + .1255 = .6255 9.44 H0: p = .32 Ha: p > .32 n = 80 z.01 = 2.33 = .01
p
= .39
32
p p
z =
pq n
.39 .32 (.32)(.68) = 1.34 80
Since the observed z = 1.34 < z.01 = 2.33, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. 9.45 = 3.45 n = 64
2 = 1.31
= .05
Ho: = 3.3 Ha: 3.3 For two-tail, /2 = .025

x
zc = 1.96
z =
3.45 3.3 1.31 = = 1.05 64
Since the observed z = 1.05 < zc = 1.96, the decision is to Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
9.46
n = 210 Ho: p = .57 Ha: p< .57
x = 93
= .10
= p
x 93 = = .443 n 210
For one-tail, = .10

p p = .443 .57
zc = -1.28
z =
p q n
(.57)(.43) = -3.72 210
Since the observed z = -3.72 < zc = -1.28, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
33
9.47
H0: 2 = 16 Ha: 2 > 16
n = 12
= .05
df = 12 - 1 = 11
s = 0.4987864 ft. = 5.98544 in. 2.05,11 = 19.6751 2 =

(12 1)(5.98544) 2 = 24.63 16
Since 2 = 24.63 > 2.05,11 = 19.6751, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.48 H0: = 8.4 Ha: 8.4
x
= .01 t.005,6 = + 3.707
/2 = .005
n=7
df = 7 1 = 6
s = 1.3
= 5.6
t =
5.6 8.4 1.3 = -5.70 7
Since the observed t = - 5.70 < t.005,6 = -3.707, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.49 = $26,650 n = 100
= $12,000
= .05 z.05 = 1.645
a) Ho: = $25,000 Ha: > $25,000 For one-tail, = .05

x
z =
26,650 25,000 12,000 = = 1.38 100
Since the observed z = 1.38 < z.05 = 1.645, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. b) a = $30,000 Solving for
x
c
zc = 1.645 :
34
xc
zc =
1.645 =
( x c 25,000) 12,000 100
= 25,000 + 1,974 = 26,974
z =
26,974 30,000 12,000 = -2.52 100
= .5000 - .4941 = .0059

9.50 H0: 2 = 4 Ha: 2 > 4 2.10,7 = 12.017 2 =
(8 1)(7.80) 2 = 106.47 4
n=8
s = 7.80
= .10
df = 8 1 = 7
Since observed 2 = 106.47 > 2.10,7 = 12.017, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.51 H0: p = .46 Ha: p > .46 n = 125 x = 66 = .05
= p x 66 = = .528 n 125
Using a one-tailed test, z.05 = 1.645

p p = .528 .46 (.46)(.54) = 1.53 125
z =
pq n
Since the observed value of z = 1.53 < z.05 = 1.645, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
35
c : Solving for p
c p p
zc =
p q n
1.645 =
c .46 p (.46)(.54) 125
c = .533 p
c pa p
z =
pa qa n
.533 .50 (.50)(.50) 125
= 0.74
from Table A.5, the area for z = 0.74 is .2704
= .5000 + .2704 = .7704

9.52 n = 16 H0: = 185 Ha: < 185 t.05,15 = - 1.753
175 185 x s t = = 14.28286 = -2.80 n 16
x
= 175
s = 14.28286
df = 16 - 1 = 15
= .05
9.53
Since observed t = - 2.80 < t.05,15 = - 1.753, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. H0: p = .16 Ha: p > .16 n = 428 x = 84 = .01 z.01 = 2.33
= p x 84 = = .1963 n 428
For a one-tailed test,
36
p p
z =
pq n
.1963 .16 (.16)(.84) = 2.05 428
Since the observed z = 2.05 < z.01 = 2.33, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. The probability of committing a Type I error is .01.
c : Solving for p
c p p
zc =
p q n
2.33 =
c .16 .p (.16)(.84) 428
c = .2013 p
c pa p
z =
pa qa n
.2013 .21 (.21)(.79) = -0.44 428
= .5000 - .1700 = .3300

9.54 Ho: = $15 Ha: > $15
x
= $19.34
n = 35
= $4.52
zc = 1.28
= .10
For one-tail and = .10

x
z =
19.34 15 4.52 = = 5.68 35
Since the observed z = 5.68 > zc = 1.28, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
37
9.55
H0: 2 = 16 Ha: 2 > 16 2.05,21 = 32.6705
n = 22
df = 22 1 = 21
s=6
= .05
(22 1)(6) 2 = = 47.25 16

2
Since the observed 2 = 47.25 > 2.05,21 = 32.6705, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.56 H0: = 2.5 Ha: > 2.5 t.01,8 = 2.896
3.4 2.5 x 0.6 s t = = = 4.50 n 9
= 3.4
s = 0.6
= .01
n=9
df = 9 1 = 8
Since the observed t = 4.50 > t.01,8 = 2.896, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
9.57 a) Ho: = 23.58 Ha: 23.58 n = 95

x
= 22.83
= 5.11
= .05 z.025 = + 1.96
Since this is a two-tailed test and using /2 = .025:

x
z =
22.83 23.58 5.11 = = -1.43 95
38
xc
b)
zc =
xc 23.58 5.11 + 1.96 = 95

xc
xc
= 23.58 + 1.03 = 22.55, 24.61
for Ha: = 22.30

xc a
z =
n xc a
22.55 22.30 5.11 = = 0.48 95 24.61 22.30 5.11 = = 4.41 95
z =
from Table A.5, the areas for z = 0.48 and z = 4.41 are .1844 and .5000
= .5000 - .1844 = .3156

The upper tail has no effect on .
39
9.58
n = 12 H0: 2 = 2.5 Ha: 2 2.5 = .05
= 12.333
s2 = 10.424
df = 11
two-tailed test, /2 = .025
2.025,11 = 21.92 2..975,11 = 3.81575 If the observed 2 is greater than 21.92 or less than 3.81575, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 2 =
(n 1) s 2
11(10.424) = 45.866 2.5
Since the observed 2 = 45.866 is greater than 2.025,11 = 21.92, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. The population variance is significantly more than 2.5. 9.59 The sample size is 22. The test statistic is:
x s t = n
x
is 3.967
s = 0.866
df = 21
The observed t = -2.34. The p-value is .015. The results are statistical significant at = .05. The decision is to reject the null hypothesis. 9.60 H0: p = .25 Ha: p .25 This is a two-tailed test with = .05. n = 384. Since the p-value = .045 < = .05, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
= .205729 which is less than the hypothesized p = .25. The sample proportion, p
40
One conclusion is that the population proportion is lower than .25. 9.61 H0: = 2.51 Ha: > 2.51 This is a one-tailed test. The sample mean is 2.555 which is more than the hypothesized value. The observed t value is 1.51 with an associated p-value of .072 for a one-tailed test. Because the p-value is greater than = .05, the decision is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to conclude that beef prices are higher. 9.62 H0: = 2747 Ha: < 2747 This is a one-tailed test. Sixty-seven households were included in this study. The sample average amount spent on home-improvement projects was 2,349. Since z = -2.09 < z.05 = -1.645, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis at = .05. This is underscored by the p-value of .018 which is less than = .05. However, the p-value of .018 also indicates that we would not reject the null hypothesis at = .01.

CH 0910

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 0910

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

CH 0910

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

Chapter 9 Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

9.4 9.5 9.6

SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS IN CHAPTER 9 9.1 a) Ho: = 25 Ha: 25

For two-tail, /2 = .005

28.1 25 8.46 = 2.77 57

observed z = 2.77 > zc = 2.575

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

= .005, the decision is to:

= 27.885 (upper value) = 22.115 (lower value)

9.2 Ho: = 7.48 Ha: < 7.48

For one-tail, = .01

6.91 7.48 1.21 = -2.31 24

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

For one-tail, = .10

1,215 1,200 100 113

78.125 82 9.184 = -2.39 32

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

2-tailed test, /2 = .025

432.69 424.20 33.90 54

1-tailed test, = .01

58,974 62,600 7,810 = -1.97 18

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

2-tailed test, /2 = .05

5.0611 5 0.2803 = 1.41 42

For one-tail, = .10,

15.6 18.2 2.3 32

For one-tailed test, = .01,

$4,008 $4,292 $386 = -5.46 55

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

40 people were sampled

critical t.025,19 = 2.093

critical t.01,50 = -2.403

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

x 1,236.36 1,160 = s 103.81 = 2.44 n 11

Ho: = 8.3 Ha: 8.3 For two-tail test, /2 = .005

critical t.005,19 = 2.861

H0: = 1.84 Ha: 1.84

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

For a two-tailed test, /2 = .05 t =

critical t.05,11 = 1.796

x 1.85083 1.84 = s .02353 = 1.59 n 12

x 1.1948 1.16 = s .0889 = 1.96 n 25

H0: = $32.28 Ha: $32.28 Two-tailed test, /2 = .025 t.025,18 = + 2.101

x 31.67 32.28 = s 1.29 t = = -2.06 n 19

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

Two-tailed test, /2 = .025, Observed t value = 0.66

critical t value = + 2.06

= .05 z.05 = 1.645

For one-tail, = .05

For one-tail, = .01

(.45)(.55) = -1.66 310

observed z = -1.66 > zc = -2.33

Chapter 9: Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing for Single Populations

For two-tail, /2 = .025