/*! 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} Q87 SE Wait staff at restaurants have e... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Wait staff at restaurants have employed various strategies to increase tips. An article in the Sept. 5, 2005, New Yorker reported that 鈥淚n one study a waitress received 50% more in tips when she introduced herself by name than when she didn鈥檛.鈥 Consider the following (fictitious) data on tip amount as a percentage of the bill:

Introduction: \({\bf{m = 50,}}\overline {\bf{x}} {\bf{ = 22}}{\bf{.63,}}{{\bf{s}}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ = 7}}{\bf{.82}}\)

No introduction: \({\bf{n = 50,}}\overline {\bf{y}} {\bf{ = 14}}{\bf{.15,}}{{\bf{s}}_{\bf{2}}}{\bf{ = 6}}{\bf{.10}}\)

Does this data suggest that an introduction increases tips on average by more than 50%? State and test the relevant hypotheses. (Hint: Consider the parameter \({\bf{\theta = }}{{\bf{\mu }}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ - 1}}{\bf{.5}}{{\bf{\mu }}_{\bf{2}}}\)

Short Answer

Expert verified

Reject the null hypothesis and there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that an introduction increases tips on average by more than 50%.

Step by step solution

01

Given information

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = 22.63,{s_1} = 7.82\\{{\bar x}_2} = 14.15 {s_2} = 6.10\\{n_1} = {n_2} = 50\end{array}\)

Since both sample sizes are large, we know that the sampling distributions of the sample mean are approximately normal (by the central limit theorem) and thus the statistic\({\bar X_1} - 1.5{\bar X_2}\)is approximately normally distributed.

Let us assume:\(\alpha = 0.05\)

Given claim: Increases by more than 50%.

The claim is either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis state the opposite of each other. The null hypothesis needs to contain an equality.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{\mu _1} - 1.5{\mu _2} = 0\\{H_a}:{\mu _1} - 1.5{\mu _2} > 0\end{array}\)

02

Find the test statistic

The value of the test statistic is the statistic decreased by its mean, divided by its standard deviation:

\(\begin{array}{c}z = \frac{{{{\bar x}_1} - 1.5{{\bar x}_2} - E\left( {{{\bar X}_1} - 1.5{{\bar X}_2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {V\left( {{{\bar X}_1} - 1.5{{\bar X}_2}} \right)} }}\\ = \frac{{{{\bar x}_1} - 1.5{{\bar x}_2} - \left( {{\mu _1} - 1.5{\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{\sigma _1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + 1.{5^2}\frac{{\sigma _2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} }}\\ = \frac{{22.63 - 1.5(14.15) - (0)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{7.8{2^2}}}{{50}} + 1.{5^2}\frac{{6.1{0^2}}}{{50}}} }}\\ \approx

0.83\end{array}\)

03

Find the P-value

The P-value is the probability of obtaining a value more extreme or equal to the standardized test statistic z, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. Determine the probability using the normal probability table.

\(\)\(\begin{array}{c}P = P(Z > 0.83)\\ = 1 - P(Z < 0.83)\\ = 1 - 0.7967\\ = 0.2033\end{array}\)

If the P-value is smaller than the significance level\(\alpha \), then the null hypothesis is rejected.

\(P > 0.05 \Rightarrow {\rm{Fail to reject}} {H_0}\)

There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that an introduction increases tips on average by more than 50%.

04

Final conclusion

There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that an introduction increases tips on average by more than 50%.

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

Torsion during hip external rotation (ER) and extension may be responsible for certain kinds of injuries in golfers and other athletes. The article "Hip Rotational Velocities During the Full Golf Swing" (J. of Sports Science and Medicine, 2009: 296-299) reported on a study in which peak ER velocity and peak IR (internal rotation) velocity (both in deg.sec\(^{ - 1}\)) were determined for a sample of 15 female collegiate golfers during their swings. The following data was supplied by the article's authors.

\(\begin{aligned}{*{20}{r}}{ Golfer }&{ \backslash multicolumn1c ER }&{ IR }&{ \backslash multicolumn1c diff }&{z perc }\\1&{ - 130.6}&{ - 98.9}&{ - 31.7}&{ - 1.28}\\2&{ - 125.1}&{ - 115.9}&{ - 9.2}&{ - 0.97}\\3&{ - 51.7}&{ - 161.6}&{109.9}&{0.34}\\4&{ - 179.7}&{ - 196.9}&{17.2}&{ - 0.73}\\5&{ - 130.5}&{ - 170.7}&{40.2}&{ - 0.34}\\6&{ - 101.0}&{ - 274.9}&{173.9}&{0.97}\\7&{ - 24.4}&{ - 275.0}&{250.6}&{1.83}\\8&{ - 231.1}&{ - 275.7}&{44.6}&{ - 0.17}\\9&{ - 186.8}&{ - 214.6}&{27.8}&{ - 0.52}\\{10}&{ - 58.5}&{ - 117.8}&{59.3}&{0.00}\\{11}&{ - 219.3}&{ - 326.7}&{107.4}&{0.17}\\{12}&{ - 113.1}&{ - 272.9}&{159.8}&{0.73}\\{13}&{ - 244.3}&{ - 429.1}&{184.8}&{1.28}\\{14}&{ - 184.4}&{ - 140.6}&{ - 43.8}&{ - 1.83}\\{15}&{ - 199.2}&{ - 345.6}&{146.4}&{0.52}\\{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\end{aligned}\)

a. Is it plausible that the differences came from a normally distributed population?

b. The article reported that mean\(( \pm SD) = - 145.3(68.0)\)for ER velocity and\( = - 227.8(96.6)\)for IR velocity. Based just on this information, could a test of hypotheses about the difference between true average IR velocity and true average ER velocity be carried out? Explain.

c. The article stated that " The lead hip peak IR velocity was significantly greater than the trail hip ER velocity\(\;\left( {p = 0.003, t value = 3.65} \right)\). "$ (The phrasing suggests that an upper-tailed test was used.) Is that in fact the case? (Note: "\(p = .033 \)in Table 2 of the article is erroneous.)

Let \({X_L},....,{X_m}\)be a random sample from a Poisson distribution with parameter\({\mu _1}\), and let \({Y_1},....,{Y_n}\)be a random sample from another Poisson distribution with parameter\({\mu _2}\). We wish to test \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\) against one of the three standard alternatives. When m and n are large, the large-sample z test of Section 9.1 can be used. However, the fact that \(V(\bar X) = \mu /n\) suggests that a different denominator should be used in standardizing\(\bar X - \bar Y\). Develop a large sample test procedure appropriate to this problem, and then apply it to the following data to test whether the plant densities for a particular species are equal in two different regions (where each observation is the number of plants found in a randomly located square sampling quadrate having area\(1\;{m^2}\), so for region 1 there were 40 quadrates in which one plant was observed, etc.):

Refer back to the previous exercise.

a. By far the most frequently tested null hypothesis when data is paired is\({H_0}:{\mu _D} = 0\). Is that a sensible hypothesis in this context? Explain.

b. Carry out a test of hypotheses to decide whether there is compelling evidence for concluding that on average diagnosis occurs more than\(\;25\)months after the onset of symptoms.

Researchers sent 5000 resumes in response to job ads that appeared in the Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. The resumes were identical except that 2500 of them had "white sounding" first names, such as Brett and Emily, whereas the other 2500 had "black sounding" names such as Tamika and Rasheed. The resumes of the first type elicited 250 responses and the resumes of the second type only 167 responses (these numbers are very consistent with information that appeared in a Jan. 15. 2003, report by the Associated Press). Does this data strongly suggest that a resume with a "black" name is less likely to result in a response than is a resume with a "white" name?

Example\(7.11\)gave data on the modulus of elasticity obtained\(1\)minute after loading in a certain configuration. The cited article also gave the values of modulus of elasticity obtained\(4\)weeks after loading for the same lumber specimens. The data is presented here. \(1\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{Observation}&{1 min}&{4 weeks}&{Difference}\\1&{10,490}&{9,110}&{1380}\\2&{16,620}&{13,250}&{3370}\\3&{17,300}&{14,720}&{2580}\\4&{15,480}&{12,740}&{2740}\\5&{12,970}&{10,120}&{2850}\\6&{17,260}&{14,570}&{2690}\\7&{13,400}&{11,220}&{2180}\\8&{13,900}&{11,100}&{2800}\\9&{13,630}&{11,420}&{2210}\\{10}&{13,260}&{10,910}&{2350}\\{11}&{14,370}&{12,110}&{2260}\\{12}&{11,700}&{8,620}&{3080}\\{13}&{15,470}&{12,590}&{2880}\\{14}&{17,840}&{15,090}&{2750}\\{15}&{14,070}&{10,550}&{3520}\\{16}&{14,760}&{12,230}&{2530}\end{array}\)

Calculate and interpret an upper confidence bound for the true average difference between\(1\)-minute modulus and\(4\)-week modulus; first check the plausibility of any necessary assumptions.

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.