/*! 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} Q50 E Recent incidents of food contami... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or' both), the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive.

  1. Does it appear that the true proportion of noncontaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level .01.
  2. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, how likely is it that the null hypothesis of equal proportions will be rejected when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80?

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true proportion of non-contaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand.

(b) \(P(z < - 6.04\) or \(z > - 0.72) = 0.7642 = 76.42\% \)

Step by step solution

01

To carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level

Given:

\({x_1} = 35\)

\(\begin{array}{l}{n_1} = 80\\{x_2} = 66\\{n_2} = 80\\\alpha = 0.01\end{array}\)

  1. Claim: \({p_1} \ne {p_2}\)
  2. The claim is either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis states an equality. Since the null hypothesis is not the claim, the alternative hypothesis is the claim.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{p_1} = {p_2}\\{H_a}:{p_1} \ne {p_2}\end{array}\)

The sample proportion is the number of successes divided by the sample size:

\({\hat p_1} = \frac{{{x_1}}}{{{n_1}}} = \frac{{35}}{{80}} \approx 0.4375\)

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\hat p}_2} = \frac{{{x_2}}}{{{n_2}}} = \frac{{66}}{{80}} \approx 0.825\\{{\hat p}_p} = \frac{{{x_1} + {x_2}}}{{{n_1} + {n_2}}} = \frac{{35 + 66}}{{80 + 80}} \approx 0.63125\end{array}\)

The critical values are the values corresponding to a probability of \(0.005/0.995\) in table A.3:

\(z = \pm 2.575\)

The rejection region then contains all values below -2.575 and all values above 2.575.

Determine the value of the test statistic:

\(z = \frac{{{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}}}{{\sqrt {{{\hat p}_p}\left( {1 - {{\hat p}_p}} \right)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{1}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{0.4375 - 0.825}}{{\sqrt {0.63125(1 - 0.63125)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{80}} + \frac{1}{{80}}} }} \approx - 5.08\)

If the value of the test statistic is within the rejection region, then the null hypothesis is rejected:

\( - 5.08 < - 2.575 \Rightarrow {\rm{ Reject }}{H_0}\)

There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true proportion of non-contaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand.

02

To Determine the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis

b)

Given:

\(\begin{array}{l}{p_1} = 0.50\\{p_2} = 0.25\end{array}\)

The critical values are the values corresponding to a probability of \(0.005/0.995\)in table A.3:

\(z = \pm 2.575\)

Determine the difference in proportions that correspond with these z-values (assuming null hypothesis \({p_1} = {p_2}\) is true):

\({\hat p_1} - {\hat p_1} = \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right) + z\sqrt {{{\hat p}_p}\left( {1 - {{\hat p}_p}} \right)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{1}{{{n_2}}}} = 0 \pm 2.575\sqrt {0.63125(1 - 0.63125)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{80}}} + \frac{1}{{80}} \approx \pm 0.1964\)

Determine the z-score corresponding with these difference in proportions, assuming that the alternative hypothesis is true (Note: We use \({p_1}\) and \({p_2}\)instead of\({\hat p_p}\), because \({\hat p_p}\)is unknown since we do not know the sample proportions):

\(\begin{array}{l}z = \frac{{{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2} - \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{p_1}\left( {1 - {p_1}} \right)}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{p_2}\left( {1 - {p_2}} \right)}}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{0.1964 - (0.50 - 0.25)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{0.50(1 - 0.50)}}{{80}} + \frac{{0.25(1 - 0.25)}}{{80}}} }} \approx - 0.72\\z = \frac{{{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2} - \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{p_1}\left( {1 - {p_1}} \right)}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{p_2}\left( {1 - {p_2}} \right)}}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{ - 0.1964 - (0.50 - 0.25)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{0.50(1 - 0.50)}}{{80}} + \frac{{0.25(1 - 0.25)}}{{80}}} }} \approx - 6.04\end{array}\)

Determine the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis using table A.3:

\(\begin{array}{l}P(z < - 6.04{\rm{ or }}z > - 0.72) = P(z < - 6.04) + P(z > - 0.72)\\ = P(z < - 6.04) + 1 - P(z < - 0.72) \approx 0 + 1 - 0.2358 = 0.7642 = 76.42\% \end{array}\)

Thus we have a 76.42 chance of rejecting the null hypothesis.

03

Final proof

(a) There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true proportion of non-contaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand.

(b) \(P(z < - 6.04\)or \(z > - 0.72) = 0.7642 = 76.42\% \)

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

The article "Fatigue Testing of Condoms" cited in Exercise 7.32 reported that for a sample of 20 natural latex condoms of a certain type, the sample mean and sample standard deviation of the number of cycles to break were 4358 and 2218 , respectively, whereas a sample of 20 polyisoprene condoms gave a sample mean and sample standard deviation of 5805 and 3990 , respectively. Is there strong evidence for concluding that true average number of cycles to break for the polyisoprene condom exceeds that for the natural latex condom by more than 1000 cycles? Carry out a test using a significance level of 01 . (Note: The cited paper reported P-values of t tests for comparing means of the various types considered.)

Hexavalent chromium has been identified as an inhalation carcinogen and an air toxin of concern in a number of different locales. The article "Airborne Hexavalent Chromium in Southwestern Ontario"(J . of Air and Waste Mgmnt. Assoc., \(1997: 905 - 910\)) gave the accompanying data on both indoor and outdoor concentration (nanograms\(/{m^3}\)) for a sample of houses selected from a certain

House

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1\;\;\;\;\;\;2\;\;\;\;\;3\;\;\;\;\;\;\;4\;\;\;\;\;5\;\;\;\;\;\;\;6\;\;\;\;\;\;\;7\;\;\;\;\;\;\;8\;\;\;\;\;\;\;9}\\{Indoor\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;.07\;\;\;\;.08\;\;\;\;.09\;\;\;\;.12\;\;\;\;.12\;\;\;\;.12\;\;\;\;.13\;\;\;\;.14\;\;\;\;.15}\\{Outdoor\;\;\;\;\;\;.29\;\;\;\;.68\;\;\;\;.47\;\;\;\;.54\;\;\;\;.97\;\;\;\;.35\;\;\;\;.49\;\;\;\;.84\;\;\;\;.86}\end{array}\)

House

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;10\;\;\;\;\;11\;\;\;\;\;12\;\;\;\;\;13\;\;\;\;\;14\;\;\;\;\;15\;\;\;\;\;16\;\;\;\;\;17}\\{Indoor\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;.15\;\;\;\;.17\;\;\;\;.17\;\;\;\;.18\;\;\;\;.18\;\;\;\;.18\;\;\;\;.18\;\;\;\;.19}\\{Outdoor\;\;\;\;\;\;.28\;\;\;\;.32\;\;\;\;.32\;\;\;\;1.55\;\;\;.66\;\;\;\;.29\;\;\;\;.21\;\;\;\;1.02}\end{array}\)

House

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{18}&{19}&{20}&{21}&{22}&{23}&{24}&{25}\\{Indoor}&{.20}&{.22}&{.22}&{.23}&{.23}&{.25}&{.26}&{.28}\\{Outdoor}&{1.59}&{.90}&{.52}&{.12}&{.54}&{.88}&{.49}&{1.24}\end{array}\)

House

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{26}&{27}&{28}&{29}&{30}&{31}&{32}&{33}\\{Indoor}&{.28}&{.29}&{.34}&{.39}&{.40}&{.45}&{.54}&{.62}\\{Outdoor}&{.48}&{.27}&{.37}&{1.26}&{.70}&{.76}&{.99}&{.36}\end{array}\)

a. Calculate a confidence interval for the population mean difference between indoor and outdoor concentrations using a confidence level of\(95\% \), and interpret the resulting interval.

b. If a\(34\)th house were to be randomly selected from the population, between what values would you predict the difference in concentrations to lie?region.

To decide whether two different types of steel have the same true average fracture toughness values, n specimens of each type are tested, yielding the following results:

\(\begin{array}{l}\underline {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Type }&{ Sample Average }&{ Sample SD }\\1&{60.1}&{1.0}\\2&{59.9}&{1.0}\\{}&{}&{}\end{array}} \\\end{array}\)

Calculate the P-value for the appropriate two-sample \(z\) test, assuming that the data was based on \(n = 100\). Then repeat the calculation for \(n = 400\). Is the small P-value for \(n = 400\) indicative of a difference that has practical significance? Would you have been satisfied with just a report of the P-value? Comment briefly.a

How does energy intake compare to energy expenditure? One aspect of this issue was considered in the article 鈥淢easurement of Total Energy Expenditure by the Doubly Labelled Water Method in Professional Soccer Players鈥 (J. of Sports Sciences, 2002: 391鈥397), which contained the accompanying data (MJ/day).

Test to see whether there is a significant difference between intake and expenditure. Does the conclusion depend on whether a significance level of .05, .01, or .001 is used?

It is well known that a placebo, a fake medication or treatment, can sometimes have a positive effect just because patients often expect the medication or treatment to be helpful. The article "Beware the Nocebo Effect" (New York Times, Aug. 12, 2012) gave examples of a less familiar phenomenon, the tendency for patients informed of possible side effects to actually experience those side effects. The article cited a study reported in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in which a group of patients diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia was randomly divided into two subgroups. One subgroup of size 55 received a compound of proven efficacy along with counseling that a potential side effect of the treatment was erectile dysfunction. The other subgroup of size 52 was given the same treatment without counseling. The percentage of the no-counseling subgroup that reported one or more sexual side effects was 15.3 %, whereas 43.6 % of the counseling subgroup reported at least one sexual side effect. State and test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level .05 to decide whether the nocebo effect is operating here. (Note: The estimated expected number of "successes" in the no-counseling sample is a bit shy of 10, but not by enough to be of great concern (some sources use a less conservative cutoff of 5 rather than 10).)

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.