/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q13BSC Testing Claims About Proportions... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7鈥22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Are Seat Belts Effective? A simple random sample of front-seat occupants involved in car crashes is obtained. Among 2823 occupants not wearing seat belts, 31 were killed. Among 7765 occupants wearing seat belts, 16 were killed (based on data from 鈥淲ho Wants Airbags?鈥 by Meyer and Finney, Chance, Vol. 18, No. 2). We want to use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. What does the result suggest about the effectiveness of seat belts?

Short Answer

Expert verified

a. The hypotheses are as follows.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{p_1} = {p_2}\,\\{H_1}:{p_1} > {p_2}\end{array}\)

The test statistic is 6.11, and the critical value is 1.645. The p-value is 0.0001.

Reject the null hypothesis to conclude that there is enough evidence to support the claim that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

b. The 90% confidence interval is\(0.00559 < \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right) < 0.0123\). There is enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of fatalities in the group not wearing seat belts is significantly higher than the group wearing seat belts.

c. The results suggest that the fatality rate is lower in the group not wearing seat belts and is significantly higher in the group wearing seat belts.

Step by step solution

01

Given information

Of the simple random sample of car crashes, the number of occupants wearing seat belts is 7765, and 2823 were not wearing seat belts.

In the group wearing seat belts, 31 were killed, and 16 were killed in the other groups.

The significance level is \(\alpha = 0.05\) to test the claim that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

02

Describe the hypotheses

a.

Let\({p_1},{p_2}\)be the actual proportion of fatalities in the population of occupants not wearing the seat belts and wearing the seat belts, respectively.

To test the effectiveness of wearing seat belts, the hypotheses are formulated as follows.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{p_1} = {p_2}\,\,\\{H_1}:{p_1} > {p_2}\end{array}\)

03

Compute the test statistic

Among 2823 occupants not wearing seat belts, 31 were killed.

Among 7765 occupants wearing seat belts,16 were killed.

From the above information, we get the following:

\(\begin{array}{l}{n_1} = 2823\,\\{x_1} = 31\,\,\\{n_2} = 7765\\{x_2} = 16\end{array}\)

The sample proportions are as follows.

\(\begin{array}{c}{{\hat p}_1} = \frac{{{x_1}}}{{{n_1}}}\\ = \frac{{31}}{{2823}}\\ = 0.011\end{array}\)

and

\(\begin{array}{c}{{\hat p}_2} = \frac{{{x_2}}}{{{n_2}}}\\ = \frac{{16}}{{7765}}\\ = 0.0021\end{array}\).

04

Find the sample pooled proportions

The sample pooled proportions are calculated as follows.

\(\begin{array}{c}\bar p = \frac{{\left( {{x_1} + {x_2}} \right)}}{{\left( {{n_1} + {n_2}} \right)}}\,\\ = \frac{{\left( {31 + 16} \right)}}{{\left( {2823 + 7765} \right)}}\\ = 0.0044\end{array}\)

and

\(\begin{array}{c}\bar q = 1 - \bar p\\ = 1 - 0.00444\\ = 0.9956\end{array}\).

05

Define the test statistic

To conduct a hypothesis test of two proportions, the test statistic is calculated as follows.

\(z = \frac{{\left( {{{{\rm{\hat p}}}_1} - {{{\rm{\hat p}}}_2}} \right) - \left( {{{\rm{p}}_{\rm{1}}} - {{\rm{p}}_{\rm{2}}}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{\rm{\bar p\bar q}}}}{{{{\rm{n}}_{\rm{1}}}}} + \frac{{{\rm{\bar p\bar q}}}}{{{{\rm{n}}_{\rm{2}}}}}} \right)} }}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,...\left( 2 \right)\)

Here, \({\rm{\bar p}}\)is the pooled sample proportion, and\({\rm{\bar q}} = 1 - {\rm{\bar p}}\).

Substitute the obtained value in equation (2) as follows.

\(\begin{array}{c}z = \frac{{\left( {{{{\rm{\hat p}}}_1} - {{{\rm{\hat p}}}_2}} \right) - \left( {{{\rm{p}}_{\rm{1}}} - {{\rm{p}}_{\rm{2}}}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{\rm{\bar p\bar q}}}}{{{{\rm{n}}_{\rm{1}}}}} + \frac{{{\rm{\bar p\bar q}}}}{{{{\rm{n}}_{\rm{2}}}}}} \right)} }}\\ = \frac{{\left( {0.011 - 0.0021} \right) - 0}}{{\sqrt {\left( {\frac{{0.0044 \times 0.9956}}{{2823}} + \frac{{0.0044 \times 0.9956}}{{7765}}} \right)} }}\\ = 6.11\end{array}\)

The value of the test statistic is 6.11.

06

Find the p-value

Referring to the standard normal table for a positive z-score of 0.9999, the cumulative probability of 6.11 is obtained from the cell intersection for rows 3.50 and above and the column value of 0.00.

That is,\(P\left( {Z < 6.11} \right) = 0.9999\).

For the right-tailed test, the p-value is the area to the right of the test statistic, which is

\(\begin{array}{c}P\left( {Z > 6.11} \right) = 1 - P\left( {Z < 6.11} \right)\\ = 1 - 0.9999\\ = 0.0001\end{array}\).

Thus, the p-value is 0.0001.

07

State the conclusion

As the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected at a 0.05 significance level. It can be concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that seat belts are effective as the proportion of fatalities is higher when occupants are not wearing seatbelts.

08

Describe the confidence interval

b.

The 0.05 significance level for a one-tailed test implies a confidence level of 90%.

The general formula for the confidence interval of the difference of proportion is as follows.

\({\rm{Confidence}}\,\,{\rm{interval}} = \left( {\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) - E\,\,,\,\,\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) + E} \right)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,...\left( 1 \right)\)\(\)

Here, E is the margin of error, which is calculated as follows.

\(E = {z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}} \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{{\hat p}_1} \times {{\hat q}_1}}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{{\hat p}_2} \times {{\hat q}_2}}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)} \).

09

Find the confidence interval

For computing the confidence interval, first, find the critical value\({z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}}\).

Thus, the value of the level of significance for the confidence interval becomes\(\alpha = 0.10\).

Hence,

\(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\alpha }{2} = \frac{{0.10}}{2}\\ = 0.05\end{array}\).

The value of\({z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}}\)from the standard normal table is equal to 1.645.

The margin of error is computed as follows.

\(\begin{array}{c}E = {z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}} \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{{\hat p}_1} \times {{\hat q}_1}}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{{\hat p}_2} \times {{\hat q}_2}}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)} \\ = 1.64 \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{0.011 \times 0.989}}{{2823}} + \frac{{0.0021 \times 0.9979}}{{7765}}} \right)} \\ = 0.00333\end{array}\).

Substitute the value of E in equation (1) as follows.

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{Confidence}}\,\,{\rm{interval}} = \left( {\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) - E\,\,,\,\,\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) + E} \right)\\ = \left( {\left( {0.011 - 0.0021} \right) - 0.00399\,,\,\,\left( {0.011 - 0.0021} \right) + 0.00399} \right)\\ = \left( {0.0089 - 0.00333\,\,,\,0.0089 + 0.00333} \right)\\ = \left( {0.00559,\,0.0123} \right)\end{array}\).

Thus, the 90% confidence interval for two proportions is \(0.00559 < \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right) < 0.0123\).

10

Analyze the interval

The 90% confidence interval does not include the hypothesized value 0, which implies that the null hypothesis is rejected.

It can be concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that seat belts are effective as the proportion of fatalities is higher when occupants are not wearing seatbelts.

11

Conclude the results

c.

From the testing of the hypothesis and using the confidence interval, the fatality rate differs in each group. The interval shows the positive range estimate, which implies that the proportion of fatalities without wearing seat belts is larger than the proportion wearing seat belts.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Interpreting Displays.

In Exercises 5 and 6, use the results from the given displays.

Testing Laboratory Gloves, The New York Times published an article about a study by Professor Denise Korniewicz, and Johns Hopkins researched subjected laboratory gloves to stress. Among 240 vinyl gloves, 63% leaked viruses; among 240 latex gloves, 7% leaked viruses. See the accompanying display of the Statdisk results. Using a 0.01 significance level, test the claim that vinyl gloves have a greater virus leak rate than latex gloves.

Robust What does it mean when we say that the F test described in this section is not robust against departures from normality?

Denomination Effect In the article 鈥淭he Denomination Effect鈥 by Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36, researchers reported results from studies conducted to determine whether people have different spending characteristics when they have larger bills, such as a \(20 bill, instead of smaller bills, such as twenty \)1 bills. In one trial, 89 undergraduate business students from two different colleges were randomly assigned to two different groups. In the 鈥渄ollar bill鈥 group, 46 subjects were given dollar bills; the 鈥渜uarter鈥 group consisted of 43 subjects given quarters. All subjects from both groups were given a choice of keeping the money or buying gum or mints. The article includes the claim that 鈥渕oney in a large denomination is less likely to be spent relative to an equivalent amount in smaller denominations.鈥 Test that claim using a 0.05 significance level with the following sample data from the study.

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7鈥22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Is Echinacea Effective for Colds? Rhinoviruses typically cause common colds. In a test of the effectiveness of Echinacea, 40 of the 45 subjects treated with Echinacea developed rhinovirus infections. In a placebo group, 88 of the 103 subjects developed rhinovirus infections (based on data from 鈥淎n Evaluation of Echinacea Angustifolia in Experimental Rhinovirus Infections,鈥 by Turner et al., New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 353, No. 4). We want to use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that Echinacea has an effect on rhinovirus infections.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. Based on the results, does Echinacea appear to have any effect on the infection rate?

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7鈥22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Accuracy of Fast Food Drive-Through Orders In a study of Burger King drive-through orders, it was found that 264 orders were accurate and 54 were not accurate. For McDonald鈥檚, 329 orders were found to be accurate while 33 orders were not accurate (based on data from QSR magazine). Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that Burger King and McDonald鈥檚 have the same accuracy rates.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. Relative to accuracy of orders, does either restaurant chain appear to be better?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.