/*! 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} Q21E In a sample of \({\rm{1000}}\) r... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

In a sample of \({\rm{1000}}\) randomly selected consumers who had opportunities to send in a rebate claim form after purchasing a product, \({\rm{250}}\) of these people said they never did so. Reasons cited for their behaviour included too many steps in the process, amount too small, missed deadline, fear of being placed on a mailing list, lost receipt, and doubts about receiving the money. Calculate an upper confidence bound at the \({\rm{95\% }}\)confidence level for the true proportion of such consumers who never apply for a rebate. Based on this bound, is there compelling evidence that the true proportion of such consumers is smaller than \({\rm{1/3}}\)? Explain your reasoning

Short Answer

Expert verified

Yes, there is compelling evidence.

Step by step solution

01

To explain the reasoning

Denote with

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{\bar p - }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{\hat p + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}}}{{{\rm{2n}}}}} \right){\rm{/}}\left( {{\rm{1 + }}\frac{{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}}}{{\rm{n}}}} \right)\\{\rm{\hat q - 1 - \hat p}}{\rm{.}}\end{array}\)

A confidence interval for a

population proportion

p with confidence level approximately\({\rm{100(1 - \alpha )}}\)is

\(\left( {{\rm{\tilde p - }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}}{\rm{ \times }}\frac{{\sqrt {{\rm{\hat p\hat q/n + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/4}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{2}}}} }}{{{\rm{1 + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/n}}}}{\rm{,\bar p + }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}}{\rm{ \times }}\frac{{\sqrt {{\rm{\hat p\hat q/n + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/4}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{2}}}} }}{{{\rm{1 + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/n}}}}} \right)\)

This is also called a score\({\rm{Cl for p}}\)

By replacing\({{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}}{\rm{with }}{{\rm{z}}_{\rm{\alpha }}}{\rm{ and in \pm }}\) only 鈥 or + stand, the large-sample upper confidence bound for\({\rm{\mu }}\)and the large-sample lower confidence bound for\({\rm{\mu }}\)are obtained.

The upper confidence bound at the\(95\% \)confidence level for the true proportion can be computed using

\({\rm{\bar p + }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}}{\rm{,}}\frac{{\sqrt {{\rm{\hat p\hat q/n + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/4}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{2}}}} }}{{{\rm{1 + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/n}}}}{\rm{.}}\)

The values in the formula are

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{\bar p - }}\frac{{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.25 + 1}}{\rm{.64}}{{\rm{5}}^{\rm{2}}}{\rm{/2000}}}}{{{\rm{1 + 1}}{\rm{.64}}{{\rm{5}}^{\rm{2}}}{\rm{/1000}}}}{\rm{ - 0}}{\rm{.2507,}}\\{\rm{\hat p - }}\frac{{{\rm{250}}}}{{{\rm{1000}}}}{\rm{ - 0}}{\rm{.25,}}\\{\rm{\hat q - 1 - \hat p - 0}}{\rm{.75,}}\end{array}\)

where

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{r}}{{\rm{100(1 - \alpha ) - 95}}}\\{{\rm{\alpha - 0}}{\rm{.05}}}\end{array}\)

and

\({{\rm{z}}_{\rm{\alpha }}}{\rm{ - }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.05}}}}\mathop {\rm{ - }}\limits^{{\rm{(1)}}} {\rm{1}}{\rm{.645}}\)

(1) : this is obtained from

\({\rm{P}}\left( {{\rm{Z > }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.05}}}}} \right){\rm{ - 0}}{\rm{.05}}\)

and from the normal probability table in the appendix. The probability can also be computed with a software.

02

To find the upper confidence bound

Therefore, the upper confidence bound at the\(95\% \)confidence level for the true proportion of such consumers is

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{\bar p + }}{{\rm{z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}}{\rm{ \times }}\frac{{\sqrt {{\rm{\hat p\hat q/n + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/4}}{{\rm{n}}^{\rm{2}}}} }}{{{\rm{1 + z}}_{{\rm{\alpha /2}}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{/n}}}}{\rm{ - \& 0}}{\rm{.2507 + }}\frac{{{\rm{1}}{\rm{.645 \times }}\sqrt {{\rm{0}}{\rm{.25 \times 0}}{\rm{.75/1000 + 1}}{\rm{.64}}{{\rm{5}}^{\rm{2}}}{\rm{/}}\left( {{\rm{4 \times 100}}{{\rm{0}}^{\rm{2}}}} \right)} }}{{{\rm{1 + 1}}{\rm{.64}}{{\rm{5}}^{\rm{2}}}{\rm{/1000}}}}\\{\rm{ - 0}}{\rm{.2507 + 0}}{\rm{.0225 - 0}}{\rm{.2732}}{\rm{.}}\end{array}\)

There is\(95\% \)confidence that the true proportion is less than\(0.2732\),which indicated that there is compelling evidence that the true proportion is smaller than\({\rm{1 / 3}}\)The answer is\(0.2732\)

Yes, there is compelling evidence.

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 鈥淢easuring and Understanding the Aging of Kraft Insulating Paper in Power Transformers鈥 contained the following observations on degree of polymerization for paper specimens for which viscosity tim\({\rm{418 421 421 422 425 427 431 434 437 439 446 447 448 453 454 463 465}}\)es concentration fell in a certain middle range:

a. Construct a boxplot of the data and comment on any interesting features.

b. Is it plausible that the given sample observations were selected from a normal distribution?

c. Calculate a two-sided \({\rm{95\% }}\)confidence interval for true average degree of polymerization (as did the authors of the article). Does the interval suggest that \({\rm{440}}\) is a plausible value for true average degree of polymerization? What about \({\rm{450}}\)?

Suppose that a random sample of \({\rm{50}}\) bottles of a particular brand of cough syrup is selected and the alcohol content of each bottle is determined. Let \({\rm{\mu }}\) denote the average alcohol content for the population of all bottles of the brand under study. Suppose that the resulting \({\rm{95\% }}\)confidence interval is \({\rm{(7}}{\rm{.8,9}}{\rm{.4)}}\). a. Would a \({\rm{90\% }}\) confidence interval calculated from this same sample have been narrower or wider than the given interval? Explain your reasoning. b. Consider the following statement: There is a \({\rm{95\% }}\) chance that \({\rm{\mu }}\) is between \({\rm{7}}{\rm{.8}}\) and \({\rm{9}}{\rm{.4}}\). Is this statement correct? Why or why not? c. Consider the following statement: We can be highly confident that \({\rm{95\% }}\) of all bottles of this type of cough syrup have an alcohol content that is between \({\rm{7}}{\rm{.8}}\) and \({\rm{9}}{\rm{.4}}\). Is this statement correct? Why or why not? d. Consider the following statement: If the process of selecting a sample of size \({\rm{50}}\) and then computing the corresponding \({\rm{95\% }}\) interval is repeated \({\rm{100}}\)times, \({\rm{95}}\) of the resulting intervals will include \({\rm{\mu }}\). Is this statement correct? Why or why not?

The technology underlying hip replacements has changed as these operations have become more popular . Starting in 2003, highly durable ceramic hips were marketed. Unfortunately, for too many patients the increased durability has been counterbalanced by an increased incidence of squeaking. The May 11, 2008, issue of the New York Times reported that in one study of 143 individuals who received ceramic hips between 2003 and 2005, 10 of the hips developed squeaking.

a. Calculate a lower confidence bound at the \({\rm{95\% }}\)confidence level for the true proportion of such hips that develop squeaking.

b. Interpret the \({\rm{95\% }}\)confidence level used in (a).

The article 鈥淒istributions of Compressive Strength Obtained from Various Diameter Cores鈥 (ACI Materials J., 2012: 597鈥606) described a study in which compressive strengths were determined for concrete specimens of various types, core diameters, and length -to-diameter ratios. For one particular type, diameter, and l/d ratio, the 18 tested specimens resulted in a sample mean compressive strength of 64.41 MPa and a sample standard deviation of 10.32 MPa. Normality of the compressive strength distribution was judged to be quite plausible.

a.Calculate a confidence interval with confidence level 98% for the true average compressive strength under these circumstances.

b.Calculate a 98% lower prediction bound for the compressive strength of a single future specimen tested under the given circumstances. (Hint: t.02,17 = 2.224.)

On the basis of extensive tests, the yield point of a particular type of mild steel-reinforcing bar is known to be normally distributed with\({\rm{\sigma = 100,}}\)The composition of bars has been slightly modified, but the modification is not believed to have affected either the normality or the value of\({\rm{\sigma }}\).

a. Assuming this to be the case, if a sample of 25 modified bars resulted in a sample average yield point of 8439 lb, compute a 90% CI for the true average yield point of the modified bar.

b. How would you modify the interval in part (a) to obtain a confidence level of 92%?

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.