/*! 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} Problem 26 In an American Animal Hospital A... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

In an American Animal Hospital Association survey, \(37 \%\) of respondents stated that they talk to their pets on the telephone. A veterinarian found this result hard to believe, so he randomly selected 150 pet owners and discovered that 54 of them spoke to their pet on the telephone. Does the veterinarian have the right to be skeptical? Use a 0.05 level of significance.

Short Answer

Expert verified
The veterinarian does not have the right to be skeptical because the z-score falls within the critical range, meaning the survey's result is plausible.

Step by step solution

01

Set Up Hypotheses

Firstly, establish the null and alternative hypotheses. The null hypothesis (\text{H}_0) states that the proportion of pet owners who talk to their pets on the phone is equal to 0.37. The alternative hypothesis (\text{H}_1) states that the proportion is not equal to 0.37.\[ H_0: p = 0.37 \] \[ H_1: p eq 0.37 \]
02

Collect Sample Data

Identify the sample proportion. In this survey, 54 out of 150 pet owners spoke to their pets on the phone. Thus, the sample proportion (\text{p-hat}) is calculated by: \[ \hat{p} = \frac{54}{150} = 0.36 \]
03

Determine Test Statistic

Next, calculate the test statistic for the sample. Using the test statistic formula for a proportion: \[ z = \frac{\hat{p} - p_0}{\sqrt{\frac{p_0(1 - p_0)}{n}}} \] Substitute the given values: \[ z = \frac{0.36 - 0.37}{\sqrt{\frac{0.37 (1 - 0.37)}{150}}} \] Calculate the denominator: \[ \sqrt{\frac{0.37 \times 0.63}{150}} = \sqrt{\frac{0.2331}{150}} = \sqrt{0.001554} = 0.0394 \] Hence, the z-score is: \[ z = \frac{0.36 - 0.37}{0.0394} \approx -0.2538 \]
04

Determine the Critical Value

For a two-tailed test at a 0.05 significance level, the critical z-value is ±1.96. Compare the calculated z-score to the critical z-value.
05

Make a Decision

Since the calculated z-value (-0.2538) falls within the range -1.96 to 1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means there is not enough evidence to say the proportion of pet owners who talk to their pets on the phone is different from 0.37.

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 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

null hypothesis
In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (\text{H}_0) is a statement that there is no effect or no difference. It is the default assumption that any observed differences are due to chance. In the given problem, the null hypothesis states that the proportion of pet owners who talk to their pets on the phone is equal to 0.37, or 37%. This can be mathematically represented as: \( H_0: p = 0.37 \) It is important to clearly define the null hypothesis when setting up a hypothesis test, as the goal is to test whether there is enough statistical evidence to reject this assumption.
alternative hypothesis
The alternative hypothesis (\text{H}_1) is the statement that we want to test against the null hypothesis. It represents what we suspect might be true instead of the null hypothesis. In our scenario, the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of pet owners who talk to their pets on the phone is not equal to 0.37. This is expressed as: \( H_1: p eq 0.37 \) For a hypothesis test, if there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, we will accept the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis usually directly opposes the null hypothesis, indicating the presence of an effect or a difference.
significance level
The significance level, often denoted as \( \alpha \), is a threshold used to determine when to reject the null hypothesis. It represents the probability of making a Type I error, which is rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true. In our problem, the significance level is set at 0.05, or 5%. This means that there is a 5% risk of concluding that there is a difference when there is none. To put it simply, if the p-value obtained from our test is less than the significance level of 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis. If it is greater than 0.05, we do not reject the null hypothesis.
z-score
The z-score is a statistical measurement that describes a value's relationship to the mean of a group of values. In hypothesis testing, the z-score helps us determine how far our sample proportion (\( \text{p-hat} \)) is from the population proportion (\( p_0 \)), in terms of standard deviations. The z-score formula for a proportion test is: \( z = \frac{\text{\text{p-hat}} - p_0}{\text{standard error}} \) In our problem, the z-score calculation is: \( z = \frac{0.36 - 0.37}{0.0394} \ = -0.2538 \) This z-score helps us understand where our sample statistic is in comparison to the hypothesized population parameter.
critical value
The critical value is the point on the test distribution that is compared to the test statistic to determine whether to reject the null hypothesis. For a two-tailed test with a significance level of 0.05, the critical value for a z-test is ±1.96. This is because the 0.05 significance level is split between the two tails of the distribution, with 0.025 in each tail. If the calculated z-score falls beyond these critical values (either less than -1.96 or greater than 1.96), we reject the null hypothesis. In our example, the z-score was -0.2538, which does not exceed the critical value range. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis, meaning there is not enough evidence to state that the proportion of pet owners talking to their pets on the phone is different from 0.37.

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

Suppose we are testing the hypothesis \(H_{0}: p=0.65\) versus \(H_{1}: p \neq 0.65\) and we find the \(P\) -value to be \(0.02 .\) Explain what this means. Would you reject the null hypothesis? Why?

Test the hypothesis using (a) the classical approach and (b) the P-value approach. Be sure to verify the requirements of the test. $$\begin{array}{l}H_{0}: p=0.55 \text { versus } H_{1}: p<0.55 \\\n=150 ; x=78 ; \alpha=0.1\end{array} $$

Parapsychology (psi) is a field of study that deals with clairvoyance or precognition. Psi made its way back into the news when a professional, refereed journal published an article by Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem, in which he claimed to demonstrate that psi is a real phenomenon. In the article Bem stated that certain individuals behave today as if they already know what is going to happen in the future. That is, individuals adjust current behavior in anticipation of events that are going to happen in the future. Here, we will present a simplified version of Bem's rescarch. (a) Suppose an individual claims to have the ability to predict the color (red or black) of a card from a standard 52 -card deck. Of course, simply by guessing we would expect the individual to get half the predictions correct, and half incorrect. What is the statement of no change or no effect in this type of experiment? What statement would we be looking to demonstrate? Based on this, what would be the null and alternative hypotheses? (b) Suppose you ask the individual to guess the correct color of a card 40 times, and the alleged savant (wise person) guesses the correct color 24 times. Would you consider this to be convincing evidence that that individual can guess the color of the card at better than a \(50 \sqrt{50}\) rate? To answer this question, we want to determine the likelihood of getting 24 or more colors correct even if the individual is simply guessing. To do this, we assume the individual is guessing so that the probability of a successful guess is \(0.5 .\) Explain how 40 coins flipped independently with heads representing a successful guess can be used to model the card-guessing experiment. (c) Now, use a random number generator, or applet such as the Coin-Flip applet in StatCrunch to flip 40 fair coins, 1000 different times. What proportion of time did you observe 24 or more heads due to chance alone? What does this tell you? Do you believe the individual has the ability to guess card color based on the results of the simulation, or could the results simply have occurred due to chance? (d) Explain why guessing card color (or flipping coins) 40 times and recording the number of correct guesses (or heads) is a binomial experiment. (e) Use the binomial probability function to find the probability of at least 24 correct guesses in 40 trials assuming the probability of success is 0.5 (f) Look at the graph of the outcomes of the simulation from part (c). Explain why the normal model might be used to estimate the probability of obtaining at least 24 correct guesses in 40 trials assuming the probability of success is \(0.5 .\) Use the model to estimate the \(P\) -value. (g) Based on the probabilities found in parts (c), (e), and (f), what might you conclude about the alleged savants ability to predict card color?

A simple random sample of size \(n=200\) individuals with a valid driver's license is asked if they drive an American-made automobile. Of the 200 individuals surveyed, 115 responded that they drive an American-made automobile. Determine if a majority of those with a valid driver's license drive an American made automobile at the \(\alpha=0.05\) level of significance.

In his book, "The Signal and the Noise," Nate Silver analyzed 733 predictions made by experts regarding political events. Of the 733 predictions, 338 were mostly true. (a) Determine the sample proportion of political predictions that were mostly true. (b) Suppose that we want to know whether the evidence suggests the political predictions were mostly true less thar half the time. State the null and alternative hypotheses. (c) Verify the normal model may be used to determine the \(P\) -value for this hypothesis test. (d) Draw a normal model with the area representing the \(P\) -val shaded for this hypothesis test. (e) Determine the \(P\) -value based on the model from part (d). (f) Interpret the \(P\) -value. (g) Based on the \(P\) -value, what does the sample evidence suggest? That is, what is the conclusion of the hypothesis test? Assume an \(\alpha=0.1\) level of significance.

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.